Shri Dattatray Omkar Patil v. Divisional Controller & Ors.

Respondents CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. June 16, 2005.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner employed a conductor Respondent- Corporation, a State Undertaking. While 20-9-1998 Nashik-Jalgaon checked Dhule it was noticed issued tickets already used. He charge-sheeted 27-10-1998 re-selling tickets passengers. A domestic enquiry ordered Enquiry Officer guilty charges levelled against him. Consequently awarded punishment dismissal service

26-8-2000. He, therefore, approached Labour Court Complaint (ULP) No.274

2000. He dispute fairness enquiry Labour Court assessment 2 evidence findings recorded Enquiry Officer proper suffer perversity. The Labour Court charge victimization contended complainant proved. The Labour Court earlier petitioner dismissed service similar conduct raised industrial dispute against dismissal. The reference rejected petitioner approached Court. He succeeded before Court directed reinstated. On background service record Labour Court allegations unfair labour practice clauses Item 1 Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 were not proved.

However, the Labour Court noted that though complaint required dismissed, petitioner retired reaching superannuation during pendency complaint and, therefore, thought relief enable petitioner-complainant retirement benefits presuming retired reaching superannuation. The operative 3 the order dated 1-8-2003 passed by the Labour Court while rejecting the complaint reads as under: "As complaint failed Respondents committed unfair labour practice dismissing him, complaint hereby dismissed. However, taking a lenient the matter, dismissal 26-8-2000 issued complainant hereby converted termination enable complainant dues/benefits presuming retiremental services terminated reaching superannuation. "

The respondent-employer challenged the order 1-8-2003 extent moulding relief filing Revision (ULP) No.45 2003 learned Member Industrial Court Nashik pleased Revision Application impugned judgment 9-7-2004. The Industrial Court Labour Court recorded finding employer indulge unfair labour practice complaint dismissed, powers 4 further relief scheme Section 30(1) Act a complaint Section 28 Act. The Labour Court relied decision Court P.K. Wani v. Divisional Controller, Dhule Industrial Court decision applicable present simple reason Labour Court P.K.Wani’s recorded a finding complaint unfair labour practice partly proved Court Court expected employer consider retiral benefits though petition entertained. The following observations indicate Labour Court could not have moulded the relief as has been done in the instant case: "I informed by Mr.Kochar because petitioner dismissed service misconduct involving dishonesty connection Employer’s business property likely payment gratuity payable provisions Payment Gratuity Act refused and, done, it would extremely 5 petitioner employee. Though I inclined disturb Industrial Court, I recommend First Respondent some mercy Petitioner a way paying earned gratuity a period service. "

It was under these circumstances that the Industrial Court Labour Court manifest relief complaint dismissed interfered exercising powers revision Section 44 Act. The reasoning Industrial Court fully justified and the view taken by the Industrial Court is required to be upheld.

Under the premises there is no case to interfere passed Industrial Court, exercising powers superintendence Article 227 Constitution. Hence petition rejected summarily. In petitioner approaches Respondent-Corporation a request consider payment retiral benefits taking consideration 6 dismissed service towards career, representation considered employer sympathetically and in keeping with its rules.

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)