Dismissed

Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Rajkumar Pratapsingh Rathod and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011WP/2506/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Divisional Social Welfare Officer's order reinstating an employee terminated without a departmental enquiry. The High Court of Bombay held that the Appellate Authority correctly set aside the termination without an enquiry and found no ground to direct a fresh one, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the order of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer was affirmed.

Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp2506.09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2506 OF 2009

¶6

Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Through President,
Smt. Vanmala Julalsingh Rathod,
R/o-"Mamta", Sane Guruji Nagar,
Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) Rajkumar Pratapsingh Rathod, R/o-Valthan Tanda, Post-Patnadevi, Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon,

¶10

2) Late Kakasaheb Julalbhau Rathod Primary Ashram School, Pimpri Haveli, Tq-Nandgaon, Dist-Nashik, Through:Head Master, (Deleted as per leave dt.27.9.2010),

¶11

3) Special District Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon,

¶12

4) The State of Maharashtra, Through: Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS.

¶14

 ...
 Shri.S.P. Brahme Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri.S.P. Shah Advocate for Respondent No.1.
 Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 3 and 4.

¶15

...

¶16

wp2506.09

¶17

¶18

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2011.

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.

¶22

2.The Petitioner - Management challenged

¶23

the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare
Officer in appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 -
employee. Respondent No.1 was working with the
Management as cook since the year 1990. By
communication/order dated 25th July, 2006,
services of the Respondent No.1 were terminated.
The Divisional Social Welfare Officer set aside
theorderofterminationanddirected
reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with back-
wages.

¶24

wp2506.09

¶25

¶26

3.This Petition was filed on 28th January,
2009. By an order dated 25th October 2010, ad

¶27

interim relief in terms of prayer clause (E) was
granted in favour of the Petitioner on condition
that Petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- with
salary savings bank account of Respondent No.1 Mr.
Rajkumar Pratapsing Rathod within one week.
Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner
submits, that the amount was deposited.

¶28

4.Shri. Brahme, learned counsel for the

¶29

Petitioner submits that order of reinstatement

¶30

with full back-wages, is bad in law and is

¶31

contrary to the facts. The counsel raised specific
objection to the order of full back-wages from the

¶32

date of termination till the date of

¶33

reinstatement. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel placed reliance on the reported
Judgment in the case of M.D., Balasaheb Desai

¶34

Sahakari S.K. Ltd. vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale,

¶35

2009 (2) S.C.C. Page 288.

¶36

wp2506.09

¶37

¶38

Respondent No.1 submits that this is a case
wherein the employee working for more than 15
years, was abruptly terminated even without
holding any departmental enquiry. The Respondent
employee was not provided with an opportunity to
defend himself in the departmental enquiry and
therefore, the Appellate Authority, in exercise of
its discretion, directed reinstatement along with
payment of full back-wages from the date of
termination.

¶39

6.We have considered the facts of the
present case. We find that without holding
departmental enquiry, the services of the
Respondent No.1 were terminated. We do not find

¶40

any error in the view adopted by the Appellate
Authority in setting aside the order of
termination.

¶41

wp2506.09

¶42

¶43

7.On behalf of the Petitioner - Management
it was submitted that directions to pay 100% back-
wages are not proper. In the facts of the case, we
find that neither of the parties had raised issue
in respect of gainful employment of Respondent
No.1 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate
Authority, in the facts of the case, found it
appropriate to direct the Management to
reinstatement the Respondent No.1 with full back-
wages. Under the impugned order of the Appellate
Authority, it is further mentioned that amount of
back-wages be disbursed from the non-salary grants
available to the Petitioner - Management.

¶44

8.Learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶45

submits that leave be granted to the Petitioner -
Management to conduct fresh enquiry against the
Respondent No.1, if the Management so desires. The
Petitioner - Management is entitled to hold
departmental enquiry, if advised, in accordance
with the Circular dated 3rd October, 1985 issued

¶46

wp2506.09

¶47

¶48

by the Director, Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune, the copy of which is
annexed at page No.90 to the reply filed on
behalf of Respondent No.3.

¶49

9.In the facts of the case, we are not
inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶50

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶51

asb/NOV11

Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Rajkumar Pratapsingh Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Rajkumar Pratapsingh Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chopada Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Devyani Krishna Patil Dongaonkar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sandip Madansing Rathod Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Phulambri Village Panchayat Phulambri Dist Aurangabad through Gram Sevak Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Rajdhar Shamrao Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gopal Mareppa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.