AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.B. Majmudar and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.—The respondents herein are facing departmental proceedings on the ground of serious irregularities in the matter of performing their duties. At the time when the inquiry was in progress, the respondents approached the Labour Court by way of filing complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 2010 on the ground that continuation of inquiry may amount to unfair labour practice. The Labour Court by giving reasons, rejected the interim relief. Revisional Court dismissed the revision application.
However, learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition and stayed the further proceedings pending before the inquiry officer. The said order is impugned at the instance of the employer-bank in this Letters Patent Appeal.
We have heard both sides. In our view, when the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondents is in connection with serious irregularities and when both the Courts declined to grant interim relief, the learned Single Judge should not have granted such interim relief by which further departmental inquiry proceedings are stayed, m our view, considering the question of balance of convenience, in case the respondents succeed, they may be compensated by way of monetary compensation. As against that, if the complaint is dismissed, the loss which the appellants may suffer cannot be compensated. Considering the same, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
Subject to above, Civil Application is allowed. Order of the learned Single Judge is stayed. Civil Application disposed of.