Disposed

Harish Digambar Jawalekar and Ors. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2018WP/6508/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition after the respondent admitted delay in conducting an inquiry due to staff unavailability. The court directed the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board to complete the inquiry expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No. 1 to complete the inquiry into the charge sheet issued to Respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible.

Harish Digambar Jawalekar and Ors. Vs Bombay… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

907-wp-6508-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6508 OF 2017

¶4

Harish Digambar Jawalekar and Others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. T.R. Yadav, for the Petitioners Mr. B.S. Mahamulkar a/w. Mr. S.S. Shetye, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S.P. Shinde, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Sandeep Babar, for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR &

¶11

N. W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JUNE 20, 2018

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

. Parties through their counsel.

¶15

With consent of the parties, heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶16

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the matter, the charge sheet has been issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is no progress in the inquiry in regard to the charge sheet which has been issued.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that on account of non availability of appropriate staff, the inquiry

1/2

Vishal Parekar

907-wp-6508-2017.doc

could not be conducted expeditiously. He, however assured that now the inquiry will be conducted as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of this Petition by directing Respondent No. 1 to complete inquiry of the charge sheet which has already been issued to Respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible.

¶23

All contentions of the Petitioners as also of the Respondent No. 2 are kept open.

¶24

The grievance of the Petitioners that the inquiry be conducted in an un-biased manner by an independent Inquiry Officer, can also be raised by the Petitioners before Respondent No.

¶25

We hope and trust that Respondent No. 1 shall examine that

¶26

point also and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶27

With the aforesaid direction, the Petition is disposed of.

¶28

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶29

2/2

¶30

Vishal Parekar

Harish Digambar Jawalekar and Ors. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Digambar Jawalekar and Ors. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors.

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

Smt. Shakuntala B. Mande and Ors. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Panchmukhi Chs through Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neelam Choudhary Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Deputy Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. Vs Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil

The Deputy Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. Vs Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil

M/S.S.R.Drugs Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.