BAJIRAO SUBHANA KENJALE Vs. VIDYUT METALLICS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order passed on 5.8.2008 by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 77 of 2007 which has arisen from the dismissal of the interim application in Complaint (ULP) No. 110 of 2006.

(2.) The petitioner was suspended from employment on 9.5.2002. He was chargesheeted for certain acts of misconduct on 17.5.2002. A domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the charges contained in the chargesheet. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. A copy of the findings of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner on 9.10.2006. The petitioner immediately filed Complaint (ULP) No.110 of 2006 apprehending the termination of his service. The application for interim relief was refused on 30.3.2007. The Industrial Court has confirmed that order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the enquiry was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Courts below ought to have granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner and allowed him to continue in service.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his contentions in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer which he has right to reply to. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no need to grant any liberty to the petitioner to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. He submits that the petitioner having elected to approach the Labour Court has forfeited his right to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. The learned counsel also submits that, even assuming the petitioner is allowed to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer at this stage, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have already concluded that the enquiry is not vitiated. The learned counsel submits that, by giving an opportunity to an employee such as the petitioner to reply to the findings of the enquiry officer, a license would be given to an employee to approach the Court at any time rather than waiting for the enquiry proceedings to be completed and for the punishment to be imposed. He relies on the judgments of this Court in the case of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v/s Star Oxides and Chemicals Ltd. & ors. , 2001 3 LLJ 54 and Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & anr. v/s Vilas Digambar Kamble,2002 3 CurLR 308, in support of his contention that both the Courts have rightly refused the interim relief to the petitioner.