SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RANGRAO KRISHNARAO CHOUDHARI – Appellant
Versus
MAHARSHI BABASAHEB KEDAR SAHAKARI SUT GIRNI, WANADONGRI THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 2188/2017



Advocates:
['PRABHAKAR C MARPAKWAR', '', 'VIKRAM PRABHAKAR MARPAKWAR', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER', '', 'FOR/R- &', 'VILAS DAMUJI RAUT', 'FOR/R']

1 WP2188.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2188 OF 2017

PETITIONER

:Rangrao S/o Krishnarao Choudhari,

Aged about 46 years, Occu. Nil.

R/o At Post Brahmanwada,

Post Walni (Khandala), Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

:1]Maharshi Babasaheb Kedar Sahakari Sut

Girni, Wanadongri, Tahsil Hingna,

District Nagpur,

Through its Managing Director.

2]The Presiding Officer,

First Labour Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

3]The Member,

Industrial Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. V. D. Raut, Advocate for the respondent no.1

Mr. A. M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 03, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2 WP2188.17.odt

2.

Heard Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. V. D. Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Respondent nos.2 and 3, who are formal parties, are represented by

Mr. A. M. Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3.

By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the

judgment and order passed by the learned authority under the

Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the learned Judge, First

Labour Court, Nagpur dated 12.12.2005 in BIR Application No.

136/1997 filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereby the learned

Judge of the First Labour Court dismissed the application, together

with the judgment and order passed by the learned Member,

Industrial Court, Nagpur, the Appellate Authority, dated 19.07.2014

in BIR Appeal No. 02/2006, whereby the learned Appellate

Authority dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and

confirmed the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005.

4.

The petitioner was working as a Winder with

respondent no.1 – company. He was served with a show cause

notice dated 02.05.1995 by the General Manager (Tech.) of

respondent no.1-Company. As per the show cause notice, on

24.04.1995, in the second shift, senior officer one Shri R.K. Jawade,

3 WP2188.17.odt

Spinning Master when gave a visit at 11.35 in the night at Winding

Department of respondent no.1-Company, that time it was found by

him that the petitioner was not on the machine and he was combing

his hairs. Upon that, said officer Shri Jawade asked the petitioner

that his shift is yet to over and therefore, he should immediately

resume his work. The show cause notice shows that upon that, the

petitioner abused Shri Jawade in very abusive language. Therefore,

Shri Jawade asked one Shri Mandwekar to call the Labour Officer

and the Watchman. Upon that, the petitioner got flared up and he

lifted one big iron container and made an assault with the same

upon Shri Jawade resulting into Shri Jawade suffering injuries. The

petitioner was, therefore, served with a notice for the following

misconducts :-

“1. M.S.O. 24(a) : Willful insubordination or disobedience

whether or not in combination with another

of any lawful and reasonable orders of a

superior ;

2. M.S.O. 24(c)

: Willful slowing down in performance or work

or abetment or instigation thereof ;

3. M.S.O. 24(h)

: Habitual breach of any standing order or any

law applicable to the establishment or any

rule made thereunder.

4. M.S.O. 24(L)

: Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent

behavior on the premises of establishment.

5. M.S.O. 24(k)

: Commission of any act subversive of discipline

or good behavior on the premises of the

establishment.”

4 WP2188.17.odt

5.

The petitioner, therefore, was dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top