Allowed

Subhash Madhavrao Bhogade v. Supdt. Engineer, Mse Dist. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013WP/230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought restoration of a withdrawn unfair labour practice complaint challenging termination. Court accepted legal advice explanation, quashed order closing complaint, restored proceedings, but barred back-wages. Rule made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 26.11.2012 quashed; Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2010 restored; back-wages barred;

Subhash Madhavrao Bhogade Vs Supdt. Engineer, Mse… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

54 WP.230.13

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 230 OF 2013

¶5

Subhash s/o. Madhavrao Bhogade, Age 55 Years, Occu. Service (Presently Nil), R/o. Golden City, Akole By-pass Road, Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., New Administrative Building, Vidyut Bhawan, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 2. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Karjat Division, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15th April, 2013.

54 WP.230.13

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1 Rule.

2 Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶15

3 The Petitioner has filed Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2010 challenging his termination. The Petitioner filed a purshis on 26th November, 2012 stating that he would challenge the order passed in second appeal against the departmental proceedings before the High Court and as there should not be any technical defect, he wants to withdraw the complaint. Pursuant thereto, the complaint was closed as withdrawn.

¶16

4 The Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order and in the alternative prayed for setting aside the order closing the ULP as withdrawn.

¶17

5 As far as prayer clause (B) is concerned, challenging the order of termination, this Court would not consider the same. In view of the remedy available to the Petitioner and which he has availed.

¶18

6 Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that under the legal advise, the Petitioner had filed the purshis in Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2010. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner was advised that he can challenge his termination in the High Court and so under that advise, had withdrew the complaint. The Petitioner be given an opportunity to prosecute the said complaint.

¶19

¶20

54 WP.230.13

¶21

7 Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that after filing of the complaint, the Petitioner had resorted to department appeals, which were dismissed. According to the leaned counsel, now again the Petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around and seek restoration of the complaint.

¶22

8 Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner has not challenged the orders passed under the departmental appeals before the High Court.

¶23

9 I have gone through the purshis filed by the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner was advised to file a writ petition in the High Court against the order passed in the Departmental Appeal and challenge the termination in the High Court.

¶24

10 In view of the fact that the complaint was already filed, the said recourse was not available to him. However, it appears that, as per the legal advise, the Petitioner had withdrawn the said complaint.

¶25

11 Taking into account the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it would not be appropriate to non-suit the Petitioner without allowing him the benefit of the legal proceedings.

¶26

12 The Petitioner has also shown bonafides. Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would not claim back-wages from the date of termination till date.

¶27

¶28

54 WP.230.13

¶29

13 Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I pass the

¶30

following order:

¶31

I. The impugned order dated 26th November, 2012 is quashed and set aside;

¶32

II. The Complaint (ULP) No.77 of 2010 is restored to its original position. However, in case the Petitioner succeeds in the said complaint, he will not be entitled to any back-wages from the date of termination till this date i.e. 15th April, 2013 ; and

¶33

III. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶34

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶35

ndm

Subhash Madhavrao Bhogade v. Supdt. Engineer, Mse Dist. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Madhavrao Bhogade v. Supdt. Engineer, Mse Dist. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagnath Ganpat Khandave. Vs General Secretary, Ahmednagar Education Society

Baliram Babulal Patil Vs Nutan Mahila Sarvodaya Bal Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Jainarayan Shankarlal Bhutade L.Rs. Ashok Jainarayan Bhutada and Ors. Vs Nandkishor Baburao Gupta L.Rs. Sarojini Nandkishor Gupta and Ors.

Abhilasha Balbhimrao Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Hindpal Shrimant Bidwe and Anr. Vs Shivaji Vithal Pandare and Ors.

Jagdish Laxman Dhonde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others