High Court
Facts
wp-866-2025.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 866 OF 20251.The Works ManagerMaharashtra State Road TransportCorporation (ST), Central Workshop,Chikalthana, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad.2.The Superintendent (Coach),Maharashtra State Road Transport,Corporation (ST), Central Workshop,Chikalthana, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad...PetitionersVersusChandrakant Madhavrao Chande,Age : 41 years, Occu. : ST Service,R/o Plot No.200, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,N-2, CIDCO, Mukundwadi,Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad..Respondent...Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. D.S. BagulAdvocate for Respondent : Mr. P.L. Shahane h/f Mr. P.P.. Shahane... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : AUGUST 11, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 13, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withconsent of parties.2.The petitioner/MSRTC impugns order dated 22.10.2024passed below Exhibit U-2 by Labour Court, Aurangabad in ComplaintULP No.32 of 2024, as well as judgment and order dated 03.12.2024 wp-866-2025.odt(2)passed by Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision Application (ULP)No.53 of 2024 thereby confirming the order of Labour Court.3.The respondent is employed as driver withpetitioner/corporation since 2009. He was promoted as vehicleexaminer and posted at S.T. Central Workshop at Chikalthana. Oncomplaint of one of fellow employee, alleging misbehavior againstrespondent, he was served with charge sheet under clause 10, 26, 28,33, 47 and 60 (E) of Discipline and Appeal Procedure. Immediately,respondent was placed under suspension and on conclusion ofinquiry, served with show cause notice dated 14.10.2024 beforedismissal from services. He was called upon to reply within a periodof seven days.4.The respondent filed Complaint ULP No.32 of 2024before Labour Court impugning show cause notice, under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention ofUnfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The learned Judge, Labour Courtwas pleased to issue notice to respondent and posted the matter forreply/appearance on 21.10.2024. On that day petitioners appearedbefore the Labour Court and passed on a pursis contending that asrespondent is terminated from service, the challenge raised incomplaint is rendered infructuous. In this background, the learnedLabour Court passed interim order below Exhibit U-2 and stayed thedismissal order dated 21.10.2024 till final disposal of complaint. The wp-866-2025.odt(3)order passed by Labour Court was then assailed by petitioners inRevision Application No.53 of 2024. However, the Industrial Courtpleased to dismiss the revision application thereby upholding theinterim relief granted by Labour Court.5.Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned advocate appearing forpetitioners vehemently submits that respondent was put underdepartmental inquiry. The inquiry report was submitted to competentauthority which contains finding of guilt against respondent.Eventually, show cause notice dated 14.10.2024 was served uponrespondent and dismissal order is passed on 21.10.2024. However,the learned Labour Court stayed the dismissal order in complainthaving restricted challenge to show cause notice. He wouldendeavour to contend that without there being amendment incomplaint challenging dismissal order, interim stay to dismissal couldnot have been granted. According to Mr. Bagul, interim order in thenature of final relief is passed without necessary prayers in thecomplaint. 6.According to Mr. Bagul, show cause notice dated14.10.2024 was served upon respondent and he was called upon toreply within a period of seven days. Finally on 21.10.2024, dismissalorder is passed. The respondent had option to challenge dismissalorder by filing independent complaint or asking amendment inpresent complaint. In absence of challenge to dismissal order, interim
Legal Reasoning
wp-866-2025.odt(5)State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika reported in AIR 1966 SC 1313to contend that dismissal would not be effective unless it is publishedand communicated to the officer concerned. 8.Having considered submissions advanced, it can beobserved that respondent raised challenge to show cause noticebefore dismissal by filing Complaint ULP No.32 of 2024. He had filedan application seeking interim relief. The Labour Court was pleasedto issue notice to respondent and made it returnable on 21.10.2024.However, as soon as respondent was served with the notice of Court,on the date of appearance, they submitted dismissal order with pursiscontending that prayers in complaint became infructuous. 9.It can be observed that notice before dismissal was servedupon respondent on 14.10.2024 with specific stipulation that he shallreply within a period seven days. However, show cause notice wassubjected to challenge in complaint before the Labour Court. Onreturnable date of notice in complaint, an order of dismissal dated21.10.2024 was put up before the Labour Court. Prima facie, there isreason to believe that such order was never served upon therespondent. Similarly, the abrupt action of dismissal from servicewithout waiting for completion of seven days period was withintention to frustrate the prayers in complaint which raises challengeto show cause notice. wp-866-2025.odt(6)10.The Labour Court has observed that inquiry initiatedagainst the complainant was completed in hasty manner andconclusion of Inquiry Officer is based on complaint given by Smt.Potulkar, who was not examined during inquiry. Even the particularsor words offending modesty are not referred in inquiry report. TheLabour Court, therefore, prima facie held that recommendation madeby Inquiry Officer was based on insufficient material to prove thecharge against employee. 11.The learned Industrial Court also concurred with theLabour Court on aforesaid aspects and observed that the order ofdismissal is passed in morning of 21.10.2024 before completion ofseven days notice period. The dismissal order was never served uponthe respondent but was directly placed on record of Labour Court.There was no communication of dismissal order to respondent. Assuch, the purpose of issuing abrupt and hasty dismissal order was anattempt to frustrate the object of complaint and prevent respondentfrom seeking interim protection.12.The Labour Court as well as Industrial Court haverecorded elaborate reasons to grant interim relief in the nature ofstatus quo ante. It is undisputed that respondent was in service onthe date when complaint was instituted and notice was issued. It isonly after service of notice of complaint and on the date of wp-866-2025.odt(7)appearance before Labour Court, the dismissal order is brought onrecord, which is apparently before expiry of seven days notice period.13.In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason tointerfere in the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction underArticle 227 of Constitution of India.14.Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.15.Rule is discharged.(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)Mujaheed//
Arguments
wp-866-2025.odt(4)relief could not have been granted. According to Mr. Bagul, bothCourts have travelled beyond pleadings and prayers. Mr. Bagul wouldendeavour to point out that the learned Labour Court entered intomerits of matter, which was not permissible at this stage. In support ofhis contention, Mr. Bagul relies upon observations of this Court incase of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule Vs.Limba Mangalsingh Thakur in Writ Petition No.1793 of 2016 decidedon 07.09.2016.7.Per contra, Mr. Shahane, learned advocate appearing forrespondent strenuously contends that the order of dismissal wasnever served upon the respondent. The dismissal order is issued onlywith an intention to frustrate the complaint filed by respondentassailing show cause notice before termination. He would submit thatinquiry conducted by respondent is vitiated for want of observance ofprinciples of natural justice. According to him, the inquiry wasillegally completed with undue haste with intention to victimize therespondent. Mr. Shahane would point out that when show causenotice was served granting seven days time for reply, the dismissalorder passed without waiting for seven days period cannot becountenanced. In support of his contention, he relies uponobservations of this Court in the case of Madhukar Shrirang Sonwaneand Anr Vs. Tatyarao Gangaram Mule reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri)1004, so also observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of