Bombay High Court
The Works Manager Maharashtra State ... vs Chandrakant Madhavrao Chande on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21908
wp-866-2025.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 866 OF 2025
1. The Works Manager
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (ST), Central Workshop,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. The Superintendent (Coach),
Maharashtra State Road Transport,
Corporation (ST), Central Workshop,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ..Petitioners
Versus
Chandrakant Madhavrao Chande,
Age : 41 years, Occu. : ST Service,
R/o Plot No.200, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
N-2, CIDCO, Mukundwadi,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. D.S. Bagul
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P.L. Shahane h/f Mr. P.P.. Shahane
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 11, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 13, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of parties.
2. The petitioner/MSRTC impugns order dated 22.10.2024
passed below Exhibit U-2 by Labour Court, Aurangabad in Complaint
ULP No.32 of 2024, as well as judgment and order dated 03.12.2024
wp-866-2025.odt
passed by Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision Application (ULP)
No.53 of 2024 thereby confirming the order of Labour Court.
3. The respondent is employed as driver with
petitioner/corporation since 2009. He was promoted as vehicle
examiner and posted at S.T. Central Workshop at Chikalthana. On
complaint of one of fellow employee, alleging misbehavior against
respondent, he was served with charge sheet under clause 10, 26, 28,
33, 47 and 60 (E) of Discipline and Appeal Procedure. Immediately,
respondent was placed under suspension and on conclusion of
inquiry, served with show cause notice dated 14.10.2024 before
dismissal from services. He was called upon to reply within a period
of seven days.
4. The respondent filed Complaint ULP No.32 of 2024
before Labour Court impugning show cause notice, under Section 30
(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The learned Judge, Labour Court
was pleased to issue notice to respondent and posted the matter for
reply/appearance on 21.10.2024. On that day petitioners appeared
before the Labour Court and passed on a pursis contending that as
respondent is terminated from service, the challenge raised in
complaint is rendered infructuous. In this background, the learned
Labour Court passed interim order below Exhibit U-2 and stayed the
dismissal order dated 21.10.2024 till final disposal of complaint. The
wp-866-2025.odt
order passed by Labour Court was then assailed by petitioners in
Revision Application No.53 of 2024. However, the Industrial Court
pleased to dismiss the revision application thereby upholding the
interim relief granted by Labour Court.
5. Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned advocate appearing for
petitioners vehemently submits that respondent was put under
departmental inquiry. The inquiry report was submitted to competent
authority which contains finding of guilt against respondent.
Eventually, show cause notice dated 14.10.2024 was served upon
respondent and dismissal order is passed on 21.10.2024. However,
the learned Labour Court stayed the dismissal order in complaint
having restricted challenge to show cause notice. He would
endeavour to contend that without there being amendment in
complaint challenging dismissal order, interim stay to dismissal could
not have been granted. According to Mr. Bagul, interim order in the
nature of final relief is passed without necessary prayers in the
complaint.
6. According to Mr. Bagul, show cause notice dated
14.10.2024 was served upon respondent and he was called upon to
reply within a period of seven days. Finally on 21.10.2024, dismissal
order is passed. The respondent had option to challenge dismissal
order by filing independent complaint or asking amendment in
present complaint. In absence of challenge to dismissal order, interim
wp-866-2025.odt
relief could not have been granted. According to Mr. Bagul, both
Courts have travelled beyond pleadings and prayers. Mr. Bagul would
endeavour to point out that the learned Labour Court entered into
merits of matter, which was not permissible at this stage. In support of
his contention, Mr. Bagul relies upon observations of this Court in
case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule Vs.
Limba Mangalsingh Thakur in Writ Petition No.1793 of 2016 decided
on 07.09.2016.
7. Per contra, Mr. Shahane, learned advocate appearing for
respondent strenuously contends that the order of dismissal was
never served upon the respondent. The dismissal order is issued only
with an intention to frustrate the complaint filed by respondent
assailing show cause notice before termination. He would submit that
inquiry conducted by respondent is vitiated for want of observance of
principles of natural justice. According to him, the inquiry was
illegally completed with undue haste with intention to victimize the
respondent. Mr. Shahane would point out that when show cause
notice was served granting seven days time for reply, the dismissal
order passed without waiting for seven days period cannot be
countenanced. In support of his contention, he relies upon
observations of this Court in the case of Madhukar Shrirang Sonwane
and Anr Vs. Tatyarao Gangaram Mule reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri)
1004, so also observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
wp-866-2025.odt
State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika reported in AIR 1966 SC 1313
to contend that dismissal would not be effective unless it is published
and communicated to the officer concerned.
8. Having considered submissions advanced, it can be
observed that respondent raised challenge to show cause notice
before dismissal by filing Complaint ULP No.32 of 2024. He had filed
an application seeking interim relief. The Labour Court was pleased
to issue notice to respondent and made it returnable on 21.10.2024.
However, as soon as respondent was served with the notice of Court,
on the date of appearance, they submitted dismissal order with pursis
contending that prayers in complaint became infructuous.
9. It can be observed that notice before dismissal was served
upon respondent on 14.10.2024 with specific stipulation that he shall
reply within a period seven days. However, show cause notice was
subjected to challenge in complaint before the Labour Court. On
returnable date of notice in complaint, an order of dismissal dated
21.10.2024 was put up before the Labour Court. Prima facie, there is
reason to believe that such order was never served upon the
respondent. Similarly, the abrupt action of dismissal from service
without waiting for completion of seven days period was with
intention to frustrate the prayers in complaint which raises challenge
to show cause notice.
wp-866-2025.odt
10. The Labour Court has observed that inquiry initiated
against the complainant was completed in hasty manner and
conclusion of Inquiry Officer is based on complaint given by Smt.
Potulkar, who was not examined during inquiry. Even the particulars
or words offending modesty are not referred in inquiry report. The
Labour Court, therefore, prima facie held that recommendation made
by Inquiry Officer was based on insufficient material to prove the
charge against employee.
11. The learned Industrial Court also concurred with the
Labour Court on aforesaid aspects and observed that the order of
dismissal is passed in morning of 21.10.2024 before completion of
seven days notice period. The dismissal order was never served upon
the respondent but was directly placed on record of Labour Court.
There was no communication of dismissal order to respondent. As
such, the purpose of issuing abrupt and hasty dismissal order was an
attempt to frustrate the object of complaint and prevent respondent
from seeking interim protection.
12. The Labour Court as well as Industrial Court have
recorded elaborate reasons to grant interim relief in the nature of
status quo ante. It is undisputed that respondent was in service on
the date when complaint was instituted and notice was issued. It is
only after service of notice of complaint and on the date of
wp-866-2025.odt
appearance before Labour Court, the dismissal order is brought on
record, which is apparently before expiry of seven days notice period.
13. In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to
interfere in the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 227 of Constitution of India.
14. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.
15. Rule is discharged.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
