AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dongaonkar S.R., J.—Heard Shri Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Dandekar, Advocate for the respondent. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
The petitioner is challenging the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on Exhibit 2 in complaint ULP No. 434/2008 on 11.2.2009, on the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief in terms of prayer clauses in the application:
(i) by an interim order direct the respondent to withdraw the reported Unfair Labour Practice temporarily withdrawing the charge-sheet dated 17.10.2008 and departmental enquiry fixed on 30.11.2008, onwards during the pendency of complaint;
(ii) grant ad interim relief staying the departmental enquiry fixed on 30.1.12008 onwards during the pendency of present application and confirm/grant the same after hearing both the parties.
to reject the interim relief.
According to the petitioner in the charge-sheet supplied to him, there were no such contents or allegations warranting interference of any misconduct and therefore, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry against him. According to him, whatever instances of misconduct are alleged against him are the routine incidents which occur in the factory of the respondent and in fact many of the employees had done the same things and if such enquiries are allowed to be continued, they would also be required to face the enquiries for misconduct.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the charge-sheet against petitioner makes out a case for the enquiry for the alleged misconduct. According to him, the enquiry is proceeded. Industrial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner asking for stay of the enquiry.
I have gone through the contents of the charge-sheet. As regards the charge item No. 1 the petitioner has submitted that he had tendered apology and therefore, charge No. 1 and 2 would not sustain. As regards items No. 3 and 4 of the charge, his submission is that those are routine-incidents in bonding department. He has tried to substantiate his contention by producing list of the workers in whose cases, such instances are occurred.
It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner is challenging the interim order. By rejecting the prayer the enquiry proceedings against him are not stayed. It is informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that petitioner is not under suspension nor his work has been withdrawn, so he has not suffered anything in his employment because of this enquiry. All that he has to do is to face enquiry and come out of the said enquiry with the result that no misconduct is proved.
In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is liable to be rejected. However, it would be directed that no effective action in pursuance of the result of enquiry shall be taken for 15 days, if the same goes against him. Industrial Court is directed to dispose of the concerned proceedings; as early as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of communication this order.
The petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule discharged.