Dismissed

Bse Limited and Anr. v. Pramod Maruti Dhaware and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2013WP/399/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order remanding the matter back to the Labour Court. The High Court found no fault in the impugned order and held the petitioners could approach the higher court under a stay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The order was stayed for four weeks with a condition that inquiries against the respondent not be proceeded with.

Bse Limited and Anr. Vs Pramod Maruti Dhaware… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

910-wp-399-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.399 OF 2013

¶5

BSE Limited & Anr. ....Petitioners. Versus Pramod Maruti Dhaware & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. K.M.Naik, Sr.Adv. i/by Sujeet P. Salkar, advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Singhavi i/by Rajmohan A. Amonkar, advocates for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶8

DATED : April 3, 2013.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard Mr. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

¶11

and Mr. Singhavi, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶12

2 By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the learned President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.133 of 2012. By the said order, the learned President allowed respondent nos.1 and 2's aforesaid revision application and set aside the Labour Court's order dated 5.10.2012 and remanded the matter back

Shivgan

910-wp-399-13

for decision afresh.

3 Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed complaint with a prayer to Labour Court that the present petitioners are engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (In short the ' said Act' ) and direction to them to desist from engaging in said unfair labour practices. They also sought relief of quashing and setting aside show-cause notices dated 12.11.2010 and 15.11.2010, suspension order dated 18.11.10 and the first chargesheet dated 2.12.2010 issued by the petitioners to respondent no.1. In this complaint, application for interim relief under Section 30(2) read with Section 32 of the said Act, was taken up for following reliefs:

¶18

“A. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the show cause notices dated 12.11.2010 and 15.11.2010 issued to the complainant no.1 by the respondents.

¶19

B. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the

Shivgan

910-wp-399-13

Suspension Order dated 18.11.2010 issued to the complainant no.1 by the respondents.

¶24

C. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the charge-sheet dated 2.12.2010 issued to the complainant No.1 by the respondents.

¶25

D. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the complainant no.1 to resume his duties forthwith.

¶26

E. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to restrain the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from initiating any departmental inquiry against the complainant no.1 in respect of subject matter of showcause notices dated 12.11.2010 and 15.11.2010 read with suspension order dated 18.11.2010 and charge-sheet dated 2.12.2010.

¶27

F. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to restrain the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from terminating the

Shivgan

910-wp-399-13

services of the complainant no.1 in any manner whatsoever.

¶32

G. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint to restrain the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 from terminating the services of the complainant no.1 in any manner whatsoever without the permission of this Hon'ble Court. “

¶33

4 Labour Court, after hearing both sides, was pleased to reject respondent nos.1 and 2's application by its order dated 5.10.2002, which order as stated above, was quashed and set aside by the Industrial Court at the instance of respondent nos.1 and 2, and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh. The Industrial Court, remanded the matter mainly on the ground that, though the labour Court correctly framed the question for consideration, failed to take into consideration documentary evidence available on record and only on the basis of case law, rejected respondent nos.1 and 2's application. I have perused the order of the Labour Court, disposing of interim application, filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. In paragraph 20 of the said order, the learned Judge of the Labour Court observed that, the main crux of the matter is, whether respondent no.1 by taking entry in C.C.T.V. Control room proves misconduct as per the provisions of the Model Standing Order. After

Shivgan

910-wp-399-13

considering the arguments of the respective counsel, this question was answered by the Labour Court by recording findings that, the allegations of misconduct levelled against respondent no.1 does not amount to misconduct. That apart, it is the specific contention of respondent nos.1 and 2, which is upheld by the Industrial Court to the effect that, the documentary evidence was not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while deciding application for interim relief. One of the documents on which respondent nos.1 and 2 relied upon, is a circular/declaration made regarding “ Restricted Area ”. Under this declaration, 'C.C.T.V. Control Room' was declared to be restricted area in which respondent no.1 allegedly took entry. It is the specific contention of respondent nos.1 and 2 that, the said declaration was made on 14.1.2011 , whereas the allegations in this behalf were made against the respondent no.1 on 12.11.2010 . Thus, the alleged misconduct is prior to the date of declaration. The said declaration, in my view, is an important document, which goes to the root of the matter. It is also settled position that if the allegations do not amount to misconduct at all then in that case, interim relief can be granted.

¶38

5 Having considered rival submissions of the respective counsel and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any fault in the

Shivgan

910-wp-399-13

impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in the writ petition in the exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

6 Observations made here-in-above are for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and the Labour Court shall decide the interim application of respondent nos.1 and 2 independently on its own merits and without being influenced either by this order or by the order impugned in this writ petition.

¶44

7 At this stage, Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, this order may be stayed for a period of six weeks in order to enable them, to approach higher Court. Request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, in the interest of justice and in order to enable petitioners to approach higher Court, this order is stayed for a period of period of four weeks from today on condition that petitioners will not proceed with inquiries initiated against respondent no.1 for the said period of four weeks.

¶45

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶46

Shivgan

Bse Limited and Anr. v. Pramod Maruti Dhaware and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bse Limited and Anr. v. Pramod Maruti Dhaware and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani Vs the Trishul B Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Hawaldar Rupai Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Sitaram Narayan Purusha Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Santosh Dattaram Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raziya Begum Hajimiya Shaikh Vs the Municipal Corporation of G.R. Mumbai and Ors.

Vice Chancellor, S.N.D.T.Women'S University and Ors. Vs Dr.Suneeta S.Sane and Ors.