STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT DHONDIRAM GURAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Maharashtra has fled this petition challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 10/6/2011 passed by the Presiding ofcer, Labour Court, Sangli allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 18/1999 fled by the Respondent under Sec. 28 read with Item Nos.1(a), (b) (d) and (f ) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) and directing his reinstatement w.e.f. 31/12/1998 with continuity and full backwages. The Judgment and Order dtd. 16/8/2011 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Sangli rejecting Petitioner's Revision (ULP) No. 13/2011 fled under Sec. 44 of the Act is also under challenge.

(2.) Facts of the case are that Respondent was engaged as 'Ward Boy' in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, District- Sangli. He was served with Memorandum of Chargesheet dtd. 10/6/1998 alleging seven charges against him. Charges levelled against him included allegations of threatening, abusing and insulting superior ofcers, failure to obey the directives of superiors, avoiding performance of assigned duties, publication of defamatory articles in newspapers etc. After holding enquiry into the charge, the Enquiry ofcer submitted report holding the charges to be proved and recommended imposition of punishment of dismissal. Accordingly, by Order dtd. 31/12/1998, the Petitioners imposed penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent.

(3.) Respondent fled Complaint (ULP) No. 18/1999 before the Labour Court, Sangli challenging the penalty of dismissal. The Complaint was resisted by Petitioner by fling Written Statement. The Labour Court, Sangli proceeded to dismiss the complaint by Judgment and Order dtd. 20/10/2007. Revision fled by the Respondent against the Labour Court's decision was partly allowed on 31/7/2010 setting aside Labour Court's decision and remanding the complaint back to the Labour Court for fresh decision. In remanded complaint, evidence was led, both by Petitioner as well as by respondent. The Labour Court delivered Order dtd. 17/1/2011 on preliminary issue of fairness in the enquiry and held that the enquiry was not fair, proper and legal and that the fndings of the Enquiry Ofcer are perverse. Opportunity was given to Petitioner to justify those fndings by leading evidence on merits. It appears that despite grant of opportunity, Petitioner failed to lead evidence before the Labour Court and fled a Pursis at Exhibit-C-23 that it did not desire to lead oral evidence. The Labour Court therefore delivered Judgment and Order dtd. 10/6/2011 allowing the complaint and directing Respondent's reinstatement w.e.f. 31/12/1998 with full backwages and continuity of service. Petitioner fled Revision (ULP) No. 13/2011 before the Industrial Court, Sangli challenging Judgment and Order dtd. 10/6/2011 of Labour Court. The Industrial Court, however proceeded to dismiss the Revision by its Judgment and Order dtd. 16/8/2011. Petitioner has fled this petition challenging the decisions of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.