Dismissed¶¶17

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C.Parbhani v. Mahabubkhan Habibkhan

Bombay HC17 Oct 2024WP/2183/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MSRTC Parbhani writ petition against Industrial Court, Jalna order in Revision (ULP) No. 23/1999 directing reinstatement with continuity and 50% backwages; dismissal dated 24.1.1985 under Regulation 61 of Bombay State Transport Employees’ Service Regulations, a regulation held unconstitutional and void in Divisional Controller MSRTC Nagpur Vs. Shridhari, 1990 (61) Factories & Labour Reports 455; termination ex-facie illegal; no inquiry into misconduct after impugned order; employee reinstated and served till retirement; objection to backwages rejected; writ petition dismissed; liberty to withdraw amount deposited in Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the respondent/employee to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court. ¶¶17

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C.Parbhani Vs Mahabubkhan Habibkhan — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the respondent/employee to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court.

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Industrial Court's judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity and 50% backwages called for interference by the High Court. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Since the respondent's services were terminated under Regulation 61, which has been held unconstitutional and void, the termination is ex-facie illegal and no fault can be found with the impugned Industrial Court order; further, no inquiry was conducted into the misconduct of the employee after the impugned order.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper; the Court sees no reason to interfere with it.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The petitioner's objection to the grant of 50% backwages fails: the Court upheld the Industrial Court's direction of reinstatement with 50% backwages and continuity as just and proper, thereby implicitly rejecting the objection to backwages.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed. Divisional Controller, MSRTC Parbhani challenged the judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 of the Industrial Court, Jalna in Revision (ULP) No. 23/1999, whereby MSRTC was directed to reinstate the respondent/employee in service with continuity and 50% backwages. The respondent had been dismissed vide order dated 24.1.1985 in terms of Regulation 61 of the Bombay State Transport Employees’ Service Regulations, which regulation was held unconstitutional and void in Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Shridhari (1990 (61) Factories & Labour Reports 455), pursuant to which the revisional Court set aside the order dated 24.1.1985 and the termination order with 60 days pay. Holding that the services were terminated under Regulation 61 which is ex-facie illegal, that the employee was dismissed without following due process, and that no inquiry was conducted into the misconduct after the impugned order, and noting that the respondent was reinstated and served till retirement, the Court found the Industrial Court's order just and proper, declined to interfere (including with regard to the objection to 50% backwages), and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited in Court.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:25578

¶2

WP 2183/01

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

206 WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2001

¶6

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M.S.R.T.C.PARBHANI VERSUS

¶7

MAHABUBKHAN HABIBKHAN

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Wange Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S.E. Siddiqui

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : October 17, 2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner/MSRTC challenges impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalna in Revision (ULP) No. 23/1999, whereby MSRTC was directed to reinstate the complainant/present respondent in service with continuity and 50% backwages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objection to grant of backwages.

¶13

Undisputedly the respondent/employee was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.1.1985 in terms of Regulation 61 of Bombay State Transport Employees’ Service Regulations. It is pointed out that in the case of Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Shridhari, reported in 1990 (61) Factories & Labour Reorts, 455,

¶14

the said regulation is held as unconstitutional and void and as such, the revisional Court has set aside the order dated 24.1.1985 issued under Regulation 61 and accordingly, termination order with 60 days pay was set aside.

¶15

WP 2183/01

¶16

¶17

By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has directed the MSRTC to reinstate the respondent/employee along with 50% backwages only and continuity in service. The respondent/employee was terminated in terms of Regulation 61, which is now set aside and the employee has been dismissed without following the due process and by granting him opportunity to defend the case. Further, no inquiry was conducted after the impugned order was passed by the Industrial Court into the misconduct of the employee. Since the services are terminated under Regulation 61 which is ex-facie illegal, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Respondent/employee was reinstated and has continued to work till his retirement and has now retired from service. Thus, the order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper. I see no reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Liberty is granted to respondent/employee to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court.

¶19

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶20

ssc/

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C.Parbhani v. Mahabubkhan Habibkhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C.Parbhani v. Mahabubkhan Habibkhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wings Automotive through Its Proprietor Ranjeet Shriniwas Reddy Malake Vs Blue Star Engineers Aurangabad

Srimauli Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Srimauli Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Bhausaheb Ubale vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Godawari Dudhana Sahakari Sakher Karkhna Ltd. Vs Ashok Rajabhau Deaslkar,and Others.

Vasant Bajirao Koli Vs v.I.P.Industries Ltd. Jalgaon