In this Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, rejected the challenge to the dismissal of a petition questioning a Labour Court order regarding misappropriation charges and imposed punishment against a railway employee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
25072013lpano.1.2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 2013 in W.P.No. 32 of 2012
Subhash Basvantrao Mhala vs. Division Controller, M.S.B.T.C. ,Amravati.
Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.
Smt. S.M.Wandile, Advocate for appellant. Shri V.G.Wankhede, Adv. for respondent.
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI & P.N.DESHMUKH,JJ DATE : 25.7.2013
The appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly the charges were not proved inasmuch as the appellant had not collected the amount and as such the case of misappropriation was not proved. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Labour Court committed error in not answering the reference in positive. She further submits that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the charges proved.
25072013lpano.1.2013 2
Perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court would
reveal that the learned Judge has given sound and cogent reasons as to how the charges stood duly proved against the present appellant. The learned Judge has also discussed the entire law on the subject elaborately.
Insofar as the submission of disproportionate punishment is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant suffered same charges which were proved on earlier occasions. In the second show cause notice wherein the punishment was proposed an opportunity was duly given to the appellant to explain factors of he being penalised on the earlier also. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the view taken by the learned Labour Court, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, is pervese warranting interference. The appeal is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
patle
25072013lpano.1.2013 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order.
Whether the punishment imposed was disproportionate and warranting interim punishment given past charges.
Subhash Basvantrao Mhala
Division Controller, M.S.B.T.C., Amravati
B.R. Gavai
P.N. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
