Dismissed

Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa and Anr. v. Sanjay Dada Bansode and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2014WP/5833/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders. The lower courts held that charges against a clerk were vague, termination illegal, and reinstatement with continuity directed without back wages. The High Court found no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The writ petition is dismissed.

Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

5833.13wp

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5833 OF 2013

¶5

1.	Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa, A.P. & Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar.
2.	Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa, A.P. & Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners
	versus
1.	Sanjay Dada Bansode, Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Khandala, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar.
2.	The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Market Yard, Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
	..... Mr. Shivaji T. Shelke, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. .....

¶6

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE J.

¶7

DATED : 1ST JULY, 2014

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

. This petition is filed by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as “APMC” for brevity), a body

¶10

5833.13wp

¶11

-2-

¶12

corporate, constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the illegality and validity of the order dated 07/11/2006 passed on preliminary issue and the judgment and order dated 29/12/2007 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 41 of 2002 and the judgment and order dated 04/08/2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision Application No. 17 of 2008.

¶13

It appears that respondent No.1 was an employee of the petitioners who was appointed in the year 1996 as a Clerk. Respondent No.1 was served charge sheet with following charges.

¶14

(1) Irregular in attending office,

¶15

(2) remaining absent without prior permission,

¶16

(3) insubordination/irresponsible behaviour,

¶17

(4) failure to perform official duties,

¶18

(5) violation of service conditions.

¶19

The Enquiry Officer, who happens to be the member of the A.P.M.C., after serving the charge sheet on respondent No.1,

¶20

after looking into documents, conducted inquiry. Based upon the reply and evidence on record, submitted report adverse to the

¶21

5833.13wp

¶22

-3-

¶23

interest of respondent No.1 with recommendation that the services of respondent No.1 be terminated. In view of the above report, services of respondent No.1 were terminated by passing resolution vide order 27/05/2001.

¶24

Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the said termination preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 41 of 2002 against the present petitioners before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar. According to present respondent No.1, since inquiry conducted against him is vitiated having regard to the fact that charges levelled against him are vague, order of termination and also that of inquiry is liable to be quashed by declaring that the petitioner has engaged themselves in unfair labour practice. After said complaint was taken up for hearing, a preliminary issue was raised as regards domestic enquiry against present respondent No.1. The said issue reads thus :

¶25

“Does the complainant prove that inquiry conducted against him is not fair and proper?”

¶26

The Labour Court by order dated 07/11/2006 answered the said issue in favour of respondent No.1 and declared that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioners against respondent

¶27

5833.13wp

¶28

-4-

¶29

No.1 is unfair and illegal. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to decide the complaint on merit and by its judgment dated 29/12/2007 was pleased to partly allow the complaint by declaring that the present petitioners are engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item-1 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 by terminating services of the complainant-present respondent No.1 w.e.f., 01/06/2001 and directed the present petitioners to re-instate the complainant in service with continuity, however, without back wages. The learned Labour Court while passing the said order has considered the pleadings, evidence that was produced before it. The learned Labour Court while dealing with issue raised in the complaint has observed that the charge sheet was served on the present respondent No.1 on 19/04/2001 and inquiry was conducted on 10/05/2001. According to the petitioners, since present respondent No.1 has admitted misconduct, it was held that charges levelled against present respondent No.1 were proved resulting in issuing show cause notice of dismissal.

¶30

The learned Labour Court also looked into the evidence

¶31

of witnesses namely Mr. Parashuram Rode, who was examined at Exhibit.C-29 and Mr. Narayan Abaji Nemane, who was examined at Exhibit.C-32. The Labour Court also evaluated the evidence below Exhibit-C-5 and C-24 and also considered the submissions of

¶32

5833.13wp -5-

¶33

learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The Labour Court also held the issue of charges levelled against present respondent No.1, which according to respondent No.1, were vague and punishment awarded against him was shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court also looked into the evidence of witnesses examined by present petitioners at Exhibit.C-29 and C-32 so as to prove misconduct. The Labour Court having regard to the evidence brought on record has noticed that before issuing charge sheet, necessary particulars of the charges were not furnished, which in fact, are vague, and held that termination of respondent No.1 is illegal. The Labour Court further observed that misconduct as alleged against respondent No.1 by the petitioners was not proved.

¶34

Aggrieved by the above referred order of the Labour Court allowing the complaint of respondent No.1 dated 29/12/2007, the Revision Application (ULP) No.17 of 2008 was preferred by the present petitioners. The said Revision came to be decided by judgment dated 04/08/2012 which is also questioned in the present petition. It appears that the present respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the finding that he was not entitled for back wages, preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 21 of 2008, which came to

¶35

5833.13wp

¶36

-6-

¶37

be dismissed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by above referred common judgment.

¶38

The Industrial Court in its revisional jurisdiction while evaluating the contentions raised before it, has re-appreciated the entire set of evidence. The Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar has observed that the charges levelled against the present respondent are too vague to answer. No specific charges are levelled against respondent No.1. The Industrial Court has observed that as the present petitioners have failed to demonstrate any perversity in the order passed by the Laour Court, as regards finding given on the preliminary issue, the Industrial Court rejected the contentions for answering preliminary issue in favour of respondent No.1. The Industrial Court also considered the judgment of the Labour Court which is passed on merits. The learned Industrial Court has taken a note of the fact that the charges were in respect of contravention of service rules but the present petitioners did not mention which rules he has contravened. According to the Industrial Court, Charge No.1, 3 and 5 levelled against the present respondent No.1 are vague. The Industrial Court has also looked into the charges of misappropriation i.e. not depositing amount collected within stipulated time and has noticed that witness of the present petitioner though has collected the amoiunt but deposited same late

¶39

5833.13wp -7-

¶40

in the office. The witness also admitted that the amount was in fact deposited and there is no misappropriation. The Industrial Court also found that even punishment imposed against present respondent No.1 was shockingly disproportionate and nothing wrong was noticed in the order of the Labour Court in directing reinstatement. As such, the Industrial Court dismissed the Revisions.

¶41

The above referred observations of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were looked into with the assistance of the learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. S.T. Shelke. Mr. S.T. Shelke submits that though rule of strict evidence is not applicable to the domestic inquiries, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have committed an error in reaching to a conclusion that the charges are vague. He submitted that as present respondent No.1 has admitted his guilt, the petitioners have rightly imposed penalty. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, as such, submits that the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶42

As observed herein above, I have gone in details in both the orders passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar and the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the charges levelled against respondent No.1 are too vague. The learned Labour Court and the Industrial Court have also

¶43

5833.13wp

¶44

looked into and appreciated the evidence. The petitioners herein have failed to demonstrate any perversity in both the orders.

¶45

Having regard to the fact that both the Courts have concurrently held that present petitioners have indulged in the act of unfair labour practice and set aside the termination, no ground for interference is established. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶46

Tupe/ 01.07.14

Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa and Anr. v. Sanjay Dada Bansode and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa and Anr. v. Sanjay Dada Bansode and Anr.

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

Santosh Magasvargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradip Bhagatsing Patil Vs Pachora Taluka Shakari Shikshan Sanstha and Others

Dattatraya Madhukar Betti Vs Maruti Kondaji Kardile and Others

Kishor Gulabchand Bhandari Vs Sumati Sahebrao Ghadge and Another

Mahadeo Surybhan Parhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagadabai Anna Jagadale Vs Prabhakar Manikrao Khadke and Others