Writ petition challenging dismissal from service concluded in 1990 via Labour Court order dismissing complaint in default. Court found no interference warranted as order remained unmodified.
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.
15.wp.11592.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11592 OF 2012
Shri Dattatray G. Shinde ..Petitioner Vs. The Superintending Engineer and Anr ..Respondents
Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar i/b Nitin Gangal, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Pitale, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mrs. Gauri Rao, AGP, for Respondent No.5.
CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 9, 2014.
P. C.:
The Petitioner was employed in Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran.
He was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 409 and 465 of Indian Penal Code.
2 It is submitted that he was acquitted by the Trial Court on 3rd March 2007. The Appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal came to be dismissed on 27th September, 2011, according to the learned counsel. In the mean while, the Respondent employer started departmental enquiry. It resulted in dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The departmental enquiry concluded in the year 1990 and the
Aswale 1/2
15.wp.11592.12
Petitioner was dismissed from service on 26th March, 1990. The Petitioner challenged the dismissal order in the Labour Court. The counsel submits that the Labour Court partly allowed Complaint (ULP)No. 125 of 1990 on 6th October, 2003. The Respondent employer challenged the said judgment and order. The counsel submits that the Appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court.
3 The learned counsel for the Respondent employer has placed before us a certified copy of the order passed by the Labour Court on 14.07.2005 dismissing the complaint in default. A copy of the said order is taken on record and marked as "X". The counsel further submits that the Petitioner's dismissal was the outcome of the departmental enquiry. The acquittal in the criminal trial was not the basis for dismissal.
4 In view of the facts stated above and the order placed before us, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the Writ Petition. Nothing is placed on record to demonstrate that the order of dismissal in default was modified, reviewed or set aside any time thereafter.
5 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Aswale 2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the dismissal from service in default can be allowed.
Whether any interference in the dismissal order is warranted.
Shri Dattatray G. Shinde
The Superintending Engineer and Anr
NARESH H. PATIL
B. P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
