Hindustan Unilever Limited, ... vs Sunil Namdeorao Patil
2023 Latest Caselaw 3113 Bom

                                                           1                                  957-wp-1054-23.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.1054/2023

              Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Sunil Namdeorao Patil

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. H.V. Thakur, Advocate for petitioner
                                  Mr. S.D. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent


                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 29th MARCH, 2023

Heard Mr. H.V.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.D.Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By the order dated 16/2/2023, the following position was recorded.

"2. It is contended that though preliminary issue as to the fairness of the enquiry and findings of the Enquiry Officer were decided in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 18/05/2018 (pg.70) and thereafter by the judgment dated 30/12/2019, the learned Labour Court had allowed the complaint by quashing the termination order dated 04/10/2013 with continuity of service, the direction insofar as it related to rejection of the back wages was challenged, before the learned Industrial Court in revision; the learned Industrial Court by the order dated 14/12/2022 has set aside the judgment

2 957-wp-1054-23.odt

of the learned Labour Court by framing three issues and remanded the matter back for fresh final argument and deciding on the issues framed (pg.35)."

3. It is therefore, apparent that the challenge is restricted to framing of issue No.1 by the learned Industrial Court in its judgment dated 14/12/2022 (page 35).

4. Mr. Harish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention, to the order on the preliminary issue nos.1 and 2 dated 18/05/2018, by the learned Labour Court contends, that the question of subsistence allowance and the grievance raised therein regarding non-payment of the same as per rule has been duly considered by the learned Labour Court and therefore, it was not permissible for the learned Industrial Court to have framed issue no.1 in its judgment dated 14/12/2022 and remanded the matter to the learned Labour Court for decision afresh.

5. Mr. S.D. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the issue of subsistence allowance has not been considered by the learned Labour Court in its proper perspective and therefore, framing of issue no.1, by the learned Industrial Court and remanding the same was in consonance with the model standing orders No.25 (5 & 5-A) as

3 957-wp-1054-23.odt

framed in that regard under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act.

6. A perusal of the order of the learned Labour Court on preliminary issue dated 18/5/2018, would indicate that the grievance regarding non- payment of the subsistence allowance as per the rules have duly been considered (para 21 page 65) and answered in the negative by holding that the complainant / respondent had failed to establish the same by filing any cogent documents. It is also recorded in the cross-examination that the respondent / complainant though had stated that he had given a letter to the management that the amount of subsistence allowance was less, however, the said document was not filed on the record. It also recorded that no document to show what should have been the amount of subsistence allowance to be paid to him and what was actually paid was placed on record. It therefore, recorded a finding that respondent / complainant had failed to prove that the management had not paid the subsistence allowance to the complainant. In the light of these findings, in my considered opinion, it was not permissible for the learned Industrial Court to have framed issue no.1 on the ground that the contentions of less payment of subsistence allowance of the employee was never considered by the Labour

4 957-wp-1054-23.odt

Court, despite the same being raised before it as this is clearly incorrect, in view of the discussions made in para 21 of the order of the learned Labour Court on the preliminary issues dated 18/5/2018. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to sustain the judgment dated 14/12/2022, passed by the learned Industrial Court, insofar as it frames issue no.1. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside to that extent. The petition is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE MP Deshpande