Namdeo Panditrao Shendge vs Maharashtra S.R. Transport Corporation and Others

R.Y. Ganoo, J.—Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

The services of the petitioner were terminated on 31st May, 2003. Thereafter, he had filed two departmental appeals and he was unsuccessful in those proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the proceeding under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as "the said Act"). In the said proceeding filed before the Labour Court, it was the contention of the petitioner that an unfair labour practice as set out in Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) & (g) of Schedule IV of the said Act was practiced by the respondents. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Yavatmal on 21st August, 2008. The revision against the said order filed in the Industrial. Court has also been dismissed by the Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal, by an order dated 11th February, 2010.

The respondents alleged that the petitioner had resold the tickets. The allegation against the petitioner is undoubtedly serious. He has faced the departmental enquiry and in the departmental enquiry he was held guilty. Applying the touch stone of Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) & (g) of Schedule TV it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have committed an act of unfair labour practice. It was the positive case of the respondents that the petitioner violated the terms of his service and embezzled funds by reissuing the tickets and on this count inquiry has been conducted and if two departmental appeals are held to be against the petitioner as also the proceeding filed under the said Act are resulted against the petitioner. I see no reason to interfere in this proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned. Perusal of the order of the Labour Court clearly goes to show that the Labour Court had considered all the matters and has arrived at a conclusion against the petitioner. Same is the position with reference to the Revisional Court. In my view, this is not a case where this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the proceeding, which were conducted against the petitioner.