The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Gunda Sakharam Kamble

Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/b. Ms. A.P. Chaware for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:

This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 2nd August, 2008, passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur, in Complaint (ULP) No.143 of 2006, which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur by order dated 25th March, 2009, passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.120 of 2008.

The Labour Court has held that an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act), has been : 2 : committed by the petitioners and that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the prayer of back wages has been rejected. The Labour Court while passing the aforesaid order has considered the fact that the charge against the respondent was absence from duty for a short period. The Labour Court has considered the fact that the respondent had been arrested and was released on bail after which he has not submitted a leave application to the petitioners. The respondent was then exonerated and acquitted by the Criminal Court. It was at that stage that the petitioners decided to hold an enquiry against the respondent. The Labour Court has considered the evidence on record where the witness for the petitioners has stated that he had received the respondent’s leave application on many occasions. However, he was not able to state what action he took on his leave application. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that there is no explanation on record to show as to why no enquiry was conducted for seven years. The respondent was suspended in 1999 and the enquiry commenced only in : 3 :

2006. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that although permission was required to be obtained to continue the enquiry, if it spilled over one year, no such permission was placed on record. Apart from this the Labour Court has observed that the Enquiry Officer had concluded that certain charges were proved against the respondent which did not form part of the charge sheet issued against him.

In my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error in granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent. Back wages have been denied for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the Labour Court. There is no need to interfere with the orders passed.