Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Shri. Shankar Yashwant Pawar on 3 January, 2023
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
9-wp 8685-16
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8685 OF 2016
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. ..Petitioner
Vs.
Shri.Shankar Yashwant Pawar ..Respondent
______________
Mr. G.S. Hegde i/b. Ms. P.M. Bhansali for the Petitioner.
Mr. Balwant Salunkhe i/b. Mr. S.D. Pandey for Respondent
_______________
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : JANUARY 03, 2023
P.C.:
1. On perusal of the earlier order dated 4 March 2020, it appears
that Mr. Balwant Salunkhe i/b. Mr. S. D. Pandey had represented the
respondent on the earlier occasion when the petition was called out on 4
March 2020.
2. Accordingly, the petition is kept back to be called out at 2.30 p.m.
The name of Mr.Balwant Salunkhe and Mr. S. D. Pandey be notified on
the electronic display. In the event the respondent is not represented,
there would be no alternative but to hear Mr.Hegde, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders.
Later on
-------------------------
03 January, 2023
9-wp 8685-16
3. Heard Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Salunkhe, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 21
November, 2013 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra,
Satara whereby Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2008, as filed by respondent
came to be partly allowed in terms of the following order:-
" ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is declared that the Respondents are indulged in unfair
labour practice as contemplated under Item-9 of Sch. IV of the
MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
3. The Respondents shall cease and desist from involving in
such unfair labour practice.
4. The complaint stands dismissed as regards the indulgence of
the Respondents in unfair labour practice as contemplated under
Item-10 of Sch. IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
5. The complainant will be entitled for modification into the
order passed by the first appellate authority dated 14.10.2003,
confirmed by the second appellate authority which is set aside and
instead of that the Respondents are given liberty to impose any of
the punishment as contemplated in Clauses (b), (c) & (e) of Clause-
7 of D & A Procedure (gairvartanukichi krutye, page no.10) on the
Complainant.
6. The Complainant will be entitled for continuity in service in
addition to the relief of his reappointment as already granted to him.
7. The alternative punishment as stated above in Clause-(5)
shall be imposed on the Complainant after giving him opportunity of
hearing before imposing the punishment.
8. Accordingly the complaint is disposed of."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent
has already attained the age of superannuation on 31 May, 2019. On
such backdrop, taking an overall view of the matter, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court on 04 March, 2020 had passed the following order so that
-------------------------
03 January, 2023
9-wp 8685-16
the dispute between the parties can be put to an end:-
". The matter was heard at some length on the last date and
was stood over to enable learned Counsel for the Petitioner to take
instructions, if the petition could be settled by imposing another
punishment, that is to say, any punishment other than dismissal
ordered in the present case by the Disciplinary Authority of the
Petitioner. Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
on instructions states that his client is agreeable to levy instead a
punishment of stoppage of three increments. Learned Counsel
submits that since the Respondent has already stood superannuated
during the pendency of the present petition, his client is agreeable to
pay back-wages and retirement benefits to the Respondent on the
basis of the proposed punishment of stoppage of three increments.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks time to take instructions
on this proposal. Stand over to 18 March 2020."
6. Today learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, states
that the respondent is ready to accept the said proposal which was
offered by the petitioner. If that be so, in my opinion, further
adjudication of the petition is not called for. The petition is accordingly
disposed of accepting the statement as made on behalf of the petitioner
and as recorded in the order dated 04 March, 2020 passed by this Court,
that the petitioner would now be agreeable to instead impose a
punishment of stoppage of three increments, and that all the benefits on
the basis of such stoppage of three increments shall be granted to the
respondent, which would accrue to him, till the date of his
superannuation.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the statement
-------------------------
03 January, 2023
9-wp 8685-16
as made on behalf of the petitioner. Let the benefits be calculated as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months
from today. There shall not be any further extension.
8. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
-------------------------
03 January, 2023
