DILIP CHANDU SALVE v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NA
Case Details
1 946-WP-10179-19.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10179 OF 2019 DILIP CHANDU SALVE VERSUS MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NANDED AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Thombre Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr. M.K. Goyanka ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 01st AUGUST, 2023 PER COURT : 1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges order dated 24/01/2019,
Legal Reasoning
passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, in Revision Application (ULP) No.36/2018, thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 08/05/2018, passed by Labour Court, Nanded, in Complaint (ULP) No.48/2016. 2. Petitioner joined services of respondent Corporation as ‘Driver’, in the year 1995 and was taken on regular time scale from 01/11/1995. His services were terminated on 04/06/2016. He challenged his termination by approaching the Labour Court, Nanded, claiming that without holding departmental inquiry and without following procedure established by law, his services were terminated which amounts to unfair labour practice. The Labour SVH 2 946-WP-10179-19.odt Court allowed Complaint (ULP) No.48/2016, filed by the petitioner. Respondent corporation challenged the order passed by Labour Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.36/2018. The Industrial Court, Jalna, has allowed the revision. Hence, the present petition. 3. Heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures thereto and the impugned order. 4. Perusal of record indicates that, initially entry of the petitioner in service was on the basis of forged documents i.e. school leaving certificate and 8th Standard mark-sheet produced by him. On a complaint received by the respondent corporation, show- cause notice dated 10/05/2016 was issued to the petitioner stating that, petitioner has produced mark-sheet of 8th Standard and school leaving certificate of Zilla Parishad Prashala, Parli Vaijnath, and got service on that basis. To verify genuineness of these documents they were sent to the Zilla Parishad Prashala, Parli Vaijnath. The school has informed that the said documents are not issued by the school. Thus, service was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged documents and therefore, petitioner is called upon to give explanation within seven days, failing which services of the petitioner shall be terminated. 5. Petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice as follows:- SVH 3 946-WP-10179-19.odt “eh ?ksrysY;k f’k{k.kklkBh lknj dsysY;k 'kkGk lksMY;kps i=k ckcr eq[;k/;kid dk;kZy; ;sFks HksVqu R;kauk loZ gdhdr lkafxryh- R;kauh ;kckcr 'kkGspk nk[kyk o xq.kif=dk bR;knh eyk izrh ns.;kr ;s.kkj vkgsr ;kal m’khj ykx.kkj vkgs- ;kckcr 08 fnolkauh vk.k[kh ijokuxh goh vkgs Eg.kts eh nLr,sot feG.kkj vkgsr- rsOgk es- lkgsckauh ek>h fouaarh fuosnukpk lgkuqHkqrhiqoZd fopkj d:u eyk 'kkGspk nk[kyk o xq.k if=dk lknj dj.;klkBh eqnr ok<oqu nsoqu mid`r djkos] gh fouarh-” 6. On receipt of reply, services of petitioner were terminated by order dated 04/06/2016, i.e. after 15 to 20 days from the reply of petitioner. It is pertinent to note that, in reply petitioner has not denied that he has tendered fake certificate and mark-sheet. Thus, impliedly he has admitted that he has got the service on the basis of fake documents. 7. Headmaster of the Zilla Parishad Prashala, Parli Vaijnath, was examined before the Labour Court and he has categorically deposed that there is no record to show that petitioner has taken education in Zilla Parishad Prashala, Parli Vaijnath. He further deposed that there is no record to show that school has issued transfer certificate to the petitioner. Name of petitioner is not found in the school record from 28/11/1973 to 31/05/1984. He further deposed that mark-sheet of 8th Standard produced by the petitioner has not been issued by their school in the year 1984. No student has been given admission on 22/06/1980. In the year 1984 the school leaving certificates were issued by the School in English language and the school leaving certificate produced by the SVH 4 946-WP-10179-19.odt petitioner is in Marathi language, therefore it is false and bogus. 8. In spite of this evidence available on record, the Labour Court has erroneously proceeded to observe that “Hence, it cannot be said that documents which have been filed by the complainant are false and bogus because the said documents have been issued in the year 1984. It creates doubt as to whether the record of year 1984 has been properly maintained by the school or it was destroyed”. This finding is clearly perverse and the same is contrary to the record. It is not clear as to on what basis the Labour Court has recorded such finding. 9. The Labour Court has further proceeded to observe that on the basis of mark-sheet and school leaving certificate petitioner has obtained caste validity certificate on 23/01/2014. The caste certificate scrutiny committee has verified the documents of petitioner at the time of issuing caste validity certificate. That cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the Headmaster of school. It is thus, clear that Labour Court has recorded erroneous findings which are rightly set aside by the Industrial Court in revision. 10. The Industrial Court has rightly appreciated documents placed on record and evidence led before the Labour Court and observed that, “This is a case of employment in public service being obtained on a fake certificate of educational qualification”. Industrial SVH 5 946-WP-10179-19.odt Court has further observed that, petitioner has stated in his cross- examination that he did not reply to the show-cause notice. It is also held that, petitioner nowhere denied allegation of furnishing fake certificate. Petitioner had sought time of eight days for producing leaving certificate as well as mark-sheet. The dismissal order is passed after 15 to 20 days of reply of the petitioner. Petitioner has failed to produce said documents even before Labour Court and/or the Industrial Court. 11. Since the charges levelled against petitioner were not specifically denied by him, there was no occasion to conduct the departmental inquiry against him. Apart from this, by leading evidence before the Labour Court respondent Cjorporation has proved the charges levelled against petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that order passed by the Labour Court is rightly set aside by the Industrial Court. 12. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law committed by the Industrial Court while setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court. No case is made out by the petitioner to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH