KRISHNA KUMAR D THAKUR Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 3rd March, 2004 this petition was finally heard and was adjourned for dictation of the judgement. The petitioner has taken exception to the Judgment and order dated 9th December, 2003, passed by the learned member of the Industrial Court, Akola. By the said judgment. Revision Application filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed. The petitioner had filed a complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1971) against the respondent No. 1 in the Court of the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Akola. By the Judgment and order dated 16th April, 2002 the learned Judge of the Labour Court held that inquiry against the petitioner was not fair, legal and proper. The learned Judge held that the respondent No. 1 was guilty of committing unfair labour practice and therefore, relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages was granted in favour of the petitioner. It appears that during the pendency of the said complaint, an order dated 17th February, 2001 was passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court below Application at exhibit 25 and directed that the Issue No. 3 which was framed regarding proving of misconduct by the respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court should be deleted. It was observed in the said order that there was no pleading in the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1 and no permission was sought by the respondent No. 1 to lead evidence in the complaint to prove the misconduct.

(2.) IN the revision application filed by the respondent No. 1, the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2002 passed by the Labour Court was challenged. The learned member of the Industrial Court relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000 (III) C. L. R. 99 (Gajanan s/ o Shamrao Thakre v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation), held that the learned Judge of the Labour Court ought to have given an opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to lead evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the petitioner. The learned Member also quashed and set aside the order dated 17th February, 2001 passed below the application at Exhibit 25. This judgment and order has been impugned in this petition. By the impugned judgment and order, the Industrial Court remanded the complaint to the Labour Court and permitted, the employer to lend evidence on the charges against the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly in the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1 no prayer was made for seeking permission to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner. In the event it was held that the inquiry against the petitioner was not fair and proper. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the complaint, at no point of time any prayer was made for seeking permission to lead evidence for establishing the guilt of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1983 (4) S. C. C. page 491 (Shambhu Nath Goyal. v. Bank of Baroda and others), (hereinafter referred to as the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal), the Apex Court held that the employer must seek opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, in support of the charges against the employee in its reply statement itself and not by any belated application. He submitted that the judgment in the case of Shambhu nath Goyal has been expressly confirmed by the Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2001 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)623 : 2001 (5) Supreme Court Cases, page 433 (Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt)and another), (hereinafter referred to as the said case of Kamataka State road Transport Corporation ). The learned Counsel further urged that the reliance placed by the learned member of the Industrial Court on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gajanan Thakre was not correct in asmuch as the said Judgment has been delivering prior to the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Kamataka state Road Transport Corporation. He pointed out that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Desh Raj gupta v. Industrial Tribunal IV, U. P. Lucknow and another), reported in 1991 (1)S. C. C. page 249 (hereinafter referred to as the case of Desh Raj Gupta) and urged that the judgment in the case of Desh Raj Gupta was delivered by the bench of the Apex Court consisting of two Hori'ble Judges without noticing the view taken in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal by a Bench of Three Hon'ble judges. In any event, he submitted that in view of the judgment of the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of Kamataka State Road Corporation the law laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Gajanan thakre is not correct. He, therefore, submitted that interference by the learned member of the Industrial Court was uncalled for.