AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present petition challenges order dated 28.12.2018, passed by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No.44/2018, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is rejected. The said Complaint was filed challenging the dismissal of the petitioner. Likewise, the petitioner also challenges order dated 3.10.2023 passed by the Industrial Court Amravati in Revision (ULP) No.4/2019, whereby the Industrial Court has confirmed the order of the Labour Court and rejected the application for interim relief.
The facts which are more or less undisputed are as under :
The petitioner who was appointed as a ‘Conductor’ in the service of the respondents was attached to Daryapur Depot during the relevant time. During that time, while performing her duty on Amravati – Chandurbazar route it was alleged that the petitioner did not issue tickets to passengers travelling from various bus stations. This was found in routine check by the checking staff. In the departmental enquiry which ensued thereafter findings were recorded against the petitioner and a show cause notice proposing her dismissal from service was issued on 22.9.2018.
Aggrieved by the proposed action the petitioner filed a Complaint before the Labour Court Amravati bearing Complaint No.44/2018 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 along with an application under Section 30(2) of the said Act. Even though the Labour Court Amravati rejected the application, the services of the petitioner were protected for a period of 15 days. The petitioner promptly challenged the said order of rejection of interim relief by filing a Revision before the Industrial Court bearing Revision (ULP) No.4/2019. The said Revision was dismissed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 3.10.2023. However, the petitioner filed an application seeking stay/keeping the order in abeyance to enable her to approach this Court. This has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition.
I have heard Mr. C.V. Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Gawai, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
As can be seen from the record and as has been admitted by the parties that the present petition arises only out of an interim order of the Labour Court and the main Complaint filed by the petitioner is still pending. Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that the interest of justice would be met if the Labour Court is directed to decide the Complaint within a particular time-frame. He relies on similar orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.921/2023 (Sayyad Sattar Vs. MSRTC, Amravati and another), Writ Petition No.4318/2016 (Ashok s/o. Suryabhan Urkude Vs. MSRTC, through its Divisional Traffic Superintendent, Tukumb Road, Chandrapur and another), Writ Petition No.8333/2019 (Ganesh s/o. Patruji Randaye Vs. MSRTC, through its Divisional Traffic Superintendent, MSRTC, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur), Writ Petition No.6457/2023 (Sandeep s/o. Vithalrao Gajbhiye Vs. MSRTC, through Divisional Controller, Amravati Division, Amravati and another) and Writ Petition No.7020/2023 (Mangesh Ramdaspant Pachpohar Vs. MSRTC, through its Divisional Controller, Amravati Division, Amravati and another).
I have perused the said orders. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed.
The Labour Court, Amravati is directed to decide the Complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No.44/2018 within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order.
This Court vide order dated 20th October 2023 has continued the protection granted by the Industrial Court. In that view of the matter, the said interim order is continued for a period of 3 months during which time the Labour Court should decide the present Complaint.
With this direction the petition is disposed of.