ASHOK MAHADEORAO MURTIZAPURKAR Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition rule was issued on 15th December. 2003 and ad-interim relief was granted. On 6th February, 2004 the petition came up before me for hearing as to interim relief. While arguing the matter on grant of interim relief, the Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that considering the time required for hearing on question of granting interim relief, the petition itself should be heard and finally decided. Accordingly the writ petition was finally heard on subsequent dates. The hearing was concluded on 17th February, 2004 and the Judgment was reserved.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 was employed by the Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the said Corporation") as a Conductor. On 28/08/1994 the petitioner No. 1 was on duty. The bus in which the petitioner No. 1 was doing his duty was checked at Yeoda by the Checking Squad of the said Corporation. The Checking Officer found that the Way Bill of the petitioner No. 1 was not properly filled and hence, statement of the petitioner was recorded and the Way Bill was seized. On the spot a new Way Bill was given to the petitioner No. 1 and was closed as per the tickets in the ticket tray of the petitioner No. 1. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was guilty of committing misconduct covered by Item No. 7 (e), 7 (h) and 12 of the sch. 'a' of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the said Procedure") of the said Corporation. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted report. On the basis of the said report of the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 24/05/1995 was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 calling upon the petitioner No. 1 to show cause as to why the petitioner No. 1 should not be dismissed from employment. The petitioner No. 1 was called upon to submit his reply within a period of 72 hours. On 25/05/1995, the petitioner No. 1, submitted a letter to the respondent No. 1, requesting him to grant further time of 48 hours for submitting the reply. In the said letter the petitioner No. 1 requested the respondent No. 1 to again record evidence of the Depot manager and Accountant. The petitioner No. 1 prayed for inspection of the record of the Disciplinary Proceedings as he had appointed a new co-worker. The petitioner stated in the said application that he was desirous of examining the Driver as a witness. It appears that on 28/05/1995 the petitioners filed complaint before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, akola under s. 28 read with s. 7 as well as Item 1 of Sch. IV of Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1971" ). In the said complaint the petitioners contended that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated by various reasons. In the said complaint the petitioner made an application for interim relief under s. 30 (2) of the said Act, of 1971. The petitioners prayed in the said application that operation of notice dated 24/05/1995 should be stayed.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the Labour Court vide Judgment and Order dated 24th October, 2002 allowed the said application and granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The said order of the learned Judge of the Labour Court was challenged by the said Corporation by filing a revision application under s. 44 of the said Act of 1971 before the learned member of the Industrial Court at Akola. By the Judgment and Order dated 20th October, 2003 the learned member of the Industrial Court, Akola allowed the revision application and the interim order passed by the learned labour Court was set aside. On the same day the learned Member stayed his own order for a period of one month. This Court on 4th December, 2003 continued the said stay granted by the learned Member of the Industrial court and thereafter at the stage of issuing rule the order of stay was continued as ad-interim relief, which is operative till today.