Ravi vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.11.2022, passed by Labour Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2014 and judgment and order dated 01.11.2023, passed by learned Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint ULP No.33 of 2022, the petitioner is before this Court.

In short, the petitioner is working as a Conductor under the establishment of the respondent. It was alleged that on 14.01.2014, while the petitioner was on duty on S.T. Bus No.MH-20-BL-2156 plying on the Ausa-Chinchwad route, the bus was checked by the flying squad at Murud. It was found that the petitioner had issued deficit amount tickets against the amount actually he received from the passengers. On the basis of the said allegation, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry concluded with an observation that the petitioner is liable for major punishment. Consequently, the respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 24.07.2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.

The petitioner has challenged the said show-cause notice vide Complaint ULP No.47 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Latur. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court dismissed the complaint vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2022. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order vide Revision ULP No.33 of 2022 before the Industrial Court, Latur. After hearing the parties, the Industrial Court dismissed the Revision vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2023.

Mr. N. L. Dhobale, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that while dismissing the complaint, the Labour Court observed on the merits of the inquiry conducted against the petitioner and further observed that the punishment proposed was not disproportionate. He would submit that although the petitioner has challenged only the show-cause notice, the Labour Court was not justified in rendering the observations on merits of the matter. He would further submit that the Industrial Court also concurred with the error committed by the Labour Court and therefore, both the judgments and orders need to be quashed and set aside.

He further submits that the petitioner restricts the petition to the extent of the impugned orders and seeks liberty to challenge the adverse order, if passed by the respondent against him on all contentions which are available to him.

Mr. A. B. Dhongade, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the petition as well as the proceedings taken up by the petitioner before the Labour Court and Industrial Court are obviously premature, as no final order of punishment has yet been passed against the petitioner. The show-cause notice merely calls upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation/justification as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. He also submits that even while challenging the punishment order, the petitioner can agitate his all defence on merits even against the charges and the procedure of the inquiry. As such, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the petition be dismissed.

Heard the parties. Apparently, no final order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. The inquiry is conducted. If the respondent/employer finds the delinquent petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, the proceedings are to culminate in an appropriate order of punishment. The impugned show-cause notice merely calls upon the petitioner to justify as to why the quantum of punishment proposed by the respondent should not be imposed against him.

I am in agreement with the objection advanced by learned Advocate Mr. A. B. Dhongade, for the employer that the petition and the proceedings before the Labour Court and Industrial Court were premature. However, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are not justified in marking any observation against the merits of the petitioner’s case. In view of this, I find that the petitioner has made out a case for interference of this Court and the petition can be allowed partly. Hence, I pass following order:

a. Writ Petition stands partly allowed.

b. The petitioner shall, within one month from today submit his reply to the show-cause notice dated 24.07.2014 to the respondent with all the material on which he wants to place reliance.

c. The respondent may pass appropriate order considering the reply that would be filed by the petitioner.

d. It is clarified that in the event any adverse order is passed by the respondent against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take every defence against the inquiry and punishment order.

e. In such challenge, if raised by the petitioner, the observations of Labour Court and Industrial Court shall not come in the way of consideration and adjudication of the petitioner’s complaint/revision on its own merit.

f. Considering that the petitioner is protected since long under the orders of this Court, the status-quo be continued until the final order of punishment is passed.

g. To the extent of observations recorded by the Labour Court on merit and proportionality of the punishment, the impugned order dated 10.11.2022, passed by Labour Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2014 and impugned order dated 01.11.2023, passed by learned Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint ULP No.33 of 2022 are quashed and set aside.

h. Rule made absolute accordingly.