Partly allowed

Ahmednagar Dist Cen.Co.Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Laxman Sangale

Bombay HC26 Apr 2011WP/3889/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions questioning an Industrial Court order that had vitiated a departmental inquiry. The court held the challenge was premature and unsustainable as it interfered with the preliminary issue of inquiry validity. Proceedings were remanded to the Labour Court to be decided finally.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were partly allowed. The challenge to the Industrial Court orders was held premature. The petitioners were permitted to take appropriate steps before the Labour Court which shall de

Ahmednagar Dist Cen.Co.Bank Ltd. Vs Bhagwan… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT

¶3

AURANGABAD

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3889 OF 1993
AND
 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3890 OF 1993
***

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3889 OF 1993

¶7

The Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Atation Road, Ahmednagar THROUGH Shri Bhausaheb Bhikaji Katore, Aged: 58 years, Occu.: Service, Managing Director, Resident of Bank Quarters, Station Road, Ahmednagar.

¶8

... PETITIONER.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bhagwan Laxman Sangale, Aged: about 41 years, Resident of Village Puntamba, Taluka: Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar.

¶11

... RESPONDENT ***

¶12

Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Gorde Patil, Advocate for the
Respondent.

¶13

***

... PETITIONER.

VERSUS

Shri Gangadhar Damodar Garje, Aged: Major, Resident of At Post and Taluka Pathardi Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶18

¶19

Shri Prakash Narayan Salunke Aged - Major, Resident of Balwant Bhawan, Shrirampur Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

Mr. V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Barde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶22

¶23

CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED:- 26th APRIL, 2011.

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶25

1.The common order passed by Labour Court,
Ahmednagar in Application (B.I.R.) No.5 of 1979,
Application (B.I.R.) No.10 of 1979 and Complaint
(ULP) No.1 of 1979 on 8th January, 1991 holding
departmental inquiry conducted by petitioner
against respective respondent/ employee to be fair
and valid, was questioned by respective employee by
filing Revision (ULP) No.5 of 1991 under section 44

¶26

of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and
Appeal (IC) Nos.1 and 2 of 1991 under section 84
(1) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The
same Member of Industrial Court has decided the
challenge on same day i.e. on 17th September, 1993

¶27

but by different judgments. The learned Member of

¶28

Industrial Court found inquiry vitiated as there
was breach of principles of natural justice. This
judgment of Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.

¶29

¶30

5 of 1991 has been questioned by employer in Writ
Petition NO.3889 of 1993 and the judgment in BIR
Appeals is questioned in writ petition No.3890 of
1993. This Court has issued rule in the matter and

¶31

then the impugned orders came to be stayed. With
the result, the proceedings before Labour Court
could not be decided finally and are still pending.
In the meanwhile, respective employee has attained
the age of superannuation and retired some time in
the year 2000 or 2001.

¶32

2.In this background, Advocate Mr. Hon for
Petitioner bank has contended that well reasoned
order of Labour Court on preliminary issue holding
departmental inquiry to be fair and valid could not

¶33

have been interfered with by Industrial Court
either in revision or in appeal. He has invited
attention even to later orders passed in Revision
or in appeal to contend that there is non-
application of mind. Effort therefore is to
justify the order of Labour Court on merits.
3.Shri Gorde Patil, Advocate for the Respondent/

¶34

employee in Writ Petition NO.3889 of 1993 and Shri
Barde, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Prakash in Writ
petition NO.3890 of 1993 have supported the
impugned order of Industrial Court. According to

¶35

¶36

them, there is no jurisdictional error or

¶37

perversity. They also challenge maintainability of
present writ petitions.

¶38

4.In view of the judgment of Honourable Apex
Court in the case of "The Cooper Engineering Ltd.
V/s P. P. Mundhe" reported in AIR 1975 S.C. 1900 I
find that the challenge in revision or appeal to
the order of Labour Court holding departmental
inquiry to be valid itself was unsustainable.
Perusal of impugned orders/ judgment of Industrial
Court reveals that Industrial Court has found
production of relevant documents at the eleventh
hours objectionable and in breach of principles of
natural justice. It has also found non-supply of
inquiry report to respective employee by petitioner
bank in breach of principles of natural justice.
The challenge to these findings of Industrial Court
has been admitted by this Court about 17 years
back. Thereafter, respective respondents have
already retired on superannuation.

¶39

5.The Honourable Apex Court has in its judgment
(supra) has already held that when such punishment
inflicted after departmental inquiry is questioned
before Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, the
Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal has to decide

¶40

¶41

first preliminary issue regarding validity or
otherwise of departmental inquiry. The Honourable
Apex Court has further held that if the inquiry is
held to be valid or then invalid, the aggrieved
party should not challenge such order and the
proceedings before Labour Court or Industrial Court
should be permitted to be decided finally and,
thereafter, said challenge can be raised. This

¶42

court in the case of "Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation V/s Naruram Mohanlal Verma
and another" reported in 2001 (1) ALL MR 475 has
already held that in such situation challenge of
interlocutory stage to such orders is not
maintainable.

¶43

6.Here, Advocate Shri Barde has invited
attention to written statement filed by the
Petitioner before Labour Court to point out that it
does not reserve leave to prove misconduct. He
also relies upon judgment of Constitution Bench of
Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Karnataka

¶44

StateRoadTransportCorpon.V/sSmt.

¶45

Lakshmidevamma and another" reported in AIR 2001 SC
2090 to urge that as said leave is not reserved,

¶46

the petitioner cannot be permitted to prove
misconduct before Labour Court.

¶47

¶48

7.In the light of discussion above, I do not
find it necessary to observe anything more in these
matters. Petitioner never raised objection to
maintainability before Industrial Court. The

¶49

challenge to impugned orders of Labour Court or
then of Industrial Court could not have been
entertained and the Labour Court ought have been
permitted to decide ULP complaint and BIR appeals
filed before it finally. Here, I hold that the
challenge to orders of Industrial Court can be

¶50

raised only thereafter.

¶51

8.In this situation, the petitioner is permitted

¶52

to take appropriate steps as are open to it before
Labour Court in the light of order of Industrial
Court. The same shall be without prejudice to its
rights to challenge the findings of Industrial
Court. The Labour Court shall decide ULP complaint
or BIR Applications finally as early as possible.
If thereafter the employer is required to challenge
that adjudication, he shall be free to raise
appropriate challenges in relation thereto before
the Industrial Court in accordance with law. The
finding of Industrial Court in impugned order that
inquiry conducted is not in accordance with
principles of natural justice shall not come in his

¶53

way at that stage and Industrial Court shall
consider the said challenge afresh in accordance
with law.

¶54

9.With these observations, the petitions are

¶55

partly allowed. No orders as to costs.

¶56

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶57

Dated:26/04/2011.
ans/3889

¶58

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.: 3889 OF 1993

¶60

Date of decision: 26th APRIL, 2011.

¶61

For approval and signature

¶62

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE
B. P. DHARMADHIKARI.

¶63

Whether Reporters of local papers...Yes
may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶64

To be referred to the Reporter or not?... No
Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No
fair copy of the judgment?

¶65

Whether this case involves a substantial... No
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any
order made thereunder?

¶66

Whether it is to be circulated to the... No
Civil Judges?

¶67

Whether the case involves an important... No
question of law and whether a copy of
the judgment should be sent to Nagpur,
Goa and Bombay offices?

¶68

[G. F. ANSARI]

¶69

PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE
 HONOURABLE JUDGE

Ahmednagar Dist Cen.Co.Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Laxman Sangale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmednagar Dist Cen.Co.Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Laxman Sangale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmedkhan Nawabkhan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave Vs Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through Manager and Ors.

Nandu Dinkar Chaudhari Vs Kiran Govinda Bhandgale and Ors.

Prakash Raosaheb Pawade and Ors. Vs Deorao Hari Pawade and Ors.

M.S.R.T.C.Nanded. Vs Venkatesh Ganpatrao Hingole.

Santosh Annarao Shetkar Vs Panchafulabai Shivraj Biradar and Ors.