Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8834 Bom
Judgement Date : 29 August, 2023
2023:BHC-NAG:12866-DB
1 WP-5568-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.5568 of 2023
Shri Sudhakar S/o Dharmaji Haste,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Naginabag, Chandrapur,
Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Principal Secretary,
Technical and Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-01.
2. Desk/Section Officer,
Technical and Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-01.
3. The Director,
Technical and Higher Education,
Dhobi Talao,
Mahyalika mark,
Mumbai-01.
4. The Joint Director,
Technical Education, Sadar, Nagpur,
Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.
5. The Government College of Engineering,
though its Principal,
Chandrapur,
Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur.
2 WP-5568-2023.odt
6. Shri M.M. Joshi,
Aged Major,
Occupation : Service,
Administrative Officer in
Technical Education Department,
Sadar, Nagpur,
Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.
7. Ku. Neha Omprakash Kamble,
Aged Major,
Occupation : Service,
In Government College of Engineering,
through its Principal, Chandrapur,
Tah. and Distt. Chandrapur. ... Respondents
Shri N.R. Saboo, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.M. Deshpande, In-Charge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :
1. Rule. Shri A.M. Deshpande, learned In-charge Government Pleader,
waives service of notice of hearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. The
names of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are permitted to be deleted from the
array of parties. The necessary deletion be carried out. Rule is made
returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner, who was working as a Laboratory Assistant with the
respondent No.5-College, was served with an order of termination
dated 31-5-2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.448
of 2018. The Tribunal recorded a finding that it had no jurisdiction to 3 WP-5568-2023.odt
entertain the Original Application and that the petitioner ought to have
approached the Labour Court for challenging the order of termination.
However, the Tribunal further held that the order of termination was legal
and proper and that it had no right to direct the absorption of the
petitioner in the respondent No.5-College. The petitioner filed Review
Petition No.13 of 2023 for review of the order passed by the Tribunal on
the ground that the Tribunal having held that it had no jurisdiction to
entertain the Original Application, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on
the order of termination were liable to be set aside. The Review Petition
has been dismissed by the Tribunal by holding that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record. All these orders passed by the Tribunal
are under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Having heard Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Shri A.M. Deshpande, learned In-charge Government Pleader for the
respondent Nos.1 to 5, we find that initially the services of the petitioner
were terminated on 30-4-2000. The petitioner approached the Labour
Court by filing a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971. That complaint was allowed by the Labour Court by setting aside
the order of termination dated 30-4-2000 and directing reinstatement of
the petitioner. Subsequently, again on 31-5-2018, the services of the
petitioner were terminated by giving notice under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though the petitioner approached the
Tribunal, it has been held that the petitioner ought to have approached the
Labour Court for seeking redressal of his grievance. However, having 4 WP-5568-2023.odt
recorded that finding, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to have
proceeded to hold that the order of termination dated 31-5-2018 was legal
and proper. That finding was given without jurisdiction. When the
Tribunal chose not to exercise jurisdiction, since the same was with the
Labour Court, it was not justified in going into the merits of the challenge
to the order of termination. The Review Petition preferred by the petitioner
has also been dismissed by the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal having
held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the order of
termination, it ought to have stopped at that without examining the merits
of the matter. On this ground, the orders passed by the Tribunal are liable
to be set aside. Hence, the following order is passed :
4. The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order
dated 13-3-2023 passed in Original Application No.448 of 2018 as well as
the order dated 21-6-2023 passed in Review Petition No.13 of 2023 in
Original Application No.448 of 2018 by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal are set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of
termination dated 31-5-2018 by approaching the Labour Court in
accordance with law.
5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
LANJEWAR
Signed by: Prashant D. Lanjewar Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 30/08/2023 16:25:40
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!