Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation - Petitioner
Versus
Keroji Sitaram Dasare - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11317 of 2015
Decided on : 05-12-2015
Labour Court - Disciplinary Proceedings - MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - [Item 1 of Schedule IV] - [Section 48(1)] - The judgment discusses the legal framework under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, specifically focusing on the principles of natural justice, the right of the employee to defend himself, and the employer's obligation to follow due procedure of law in conducting domestic enquiries against erring employees. The court emphasizes the need for a strong prima facie case to grant stay to disciplinary proceedings and the importance of considering the gravity of misconduct and past service record before imposing a penalty. The judgment also highlights the distinction between the 15th and 42nd amendments to Article 311 of the Constitution, emphasizing the employee's right to show cause on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reason for the proposed penalty. The court quashes the impugned orders and directs the Petitioner Corporation to issue a fresh order of punishment, considering various factors and awarding a commensurate and proportionate punishment to the Respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, a 'Leading Fireman' in the emergency cadre of the Petitioner, was charged with unauthorized absenteeism for 70 days and placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court stayed the second show cause notice and the Industrial Court dismissed the Petitioner's revision petition. The Petitioner sought to follow due procedure of law, while the Respondent argued that the punishment proposed was shockingly disproportionate and his past service record should be considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts did not consider the legal position and failed to apply the principles of natural justice and due procedure of law. It quashed the impugned orders and directed the Petitioner to issue a fresh order of punishment, considering various factors and awarding a commensurate and proportionate punishment to the Respondent.
Issues: The issues involved were the grant of stay to disciplinary proceedings, the consideration of the gravity of misconduct and past service record, and the application of the principles of natural justice and due procedure of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a strong prima facie case to grant stay to disciplinary proceedings, the importance of considering the gravity of misconduct and past service record before imposing a penalty, and the distinction between the 15th and 42nd amendments to Article 311 of the Constitution, emphasizing the employee's right to show cause on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reason for the proposed penalty.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the Petitioner was directed to issue a fresh order of punishment, considering various factors and awarding a commensurate and proportionate punishment to the Respondent.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 delivered by the Labour Court below Exhibit U/2 in Complaint (ULP) No.12/2014 by which the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Petitioner/ Management has been stayed.
3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.10.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.42/2015 by which the revision petition of the Petitioner has been dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.
5. The issue involved is that the Respondent/Employee was served with the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2015 along with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 10.02.2014 and the same has been stayed by the Labour Court.
6. It is not disputed that the charge sheet-cum-show cause notice was issued to the Respondent/Employee. He was charged with unauthorized absenteeism for 70 days. The Respondent was a “Leading Fireman” in the emergency cadre of the Petitioner and deployed in the Fire Brigade of the Petitioner. He has been placed under suspension pending the disciplinary proceedings.
7. It is also not disputed that after considering the reply of the Respondent, the Petitioner initiated the domestic enquiry and the Respondent engaged an Advocate as his defence representative and participated in the enquiry. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10.02.2014 by which the charges of unauthorized absenteeism are held to be proved against the Respondent.
8. After receiving the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2014 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer annexed thereto, the Respondent preferred Complaint (ULP) No.12/2014 before the Labour Court at Nanded. By an exparte adinterim order dated 25.04.2014, the Labour Court concluded that prima facie, the punishment proposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate.
9. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent obtained a copy of the inward register and after he noticed an entry at Sr.No.23 indicating that the order of termination by way of punishment was issued, he rushed to the Labour Court by filing the complaint and was granted an exparte adinterim protection. By the impugned order dated 29.07.2015, the Labour Court has allowed the application for interim relief on the ground that the Respondent is not absent for more than six months and therefore, the Petitioner was prevented from initiating any action against the Respondent.
10. The Petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No.42/2015 before the Industrial Court at Jalna. By the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2015, the Industrial Court concluded that the interim order passed by the Labour Court was not perverse and no interference is called for.
11. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner desires to follow the due procedure of law while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings. When there was substantial compliance of such procedure, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the endeavour of the Petitioner to take the disciplinary proceedings to a logical end. Earlier by an exparte adinterim order dated 25.04.2014 and subsequently, by the interim order dated 29.07.2015, the Labour Court has prevented the Petitioner from initiating action in accordance with law.
12. The Petitioner submits that the impugned orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court deserve to be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner deserves to be permitted to follow the due procedure of law and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.
13. Shri Piratwad, learned Advocate for the sole Respondent, has vehemently supported the impugned orders. He submits that after receiving the second show cause notice, the Respondent has replied to the same on 29.03.2014. The reply has been submitted after considering the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer whi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
