ASHOK ANANDRAO MANE Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges an order of dismissal dated 13 th March 1995 passed by the respondent-Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, pursuant to a domestic enquiry held against the petitioner. It also challenges the Judgment and Award dated 5th February 2007 passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur, allowing the claim of the petitioner partly. While allowing the Reference (IDA) No.94/1996 partly, the order of forfeiture of the provident fund amount and interest thereon, under Regulation No.21(b) of the Bombay State Financial Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1955, was set aside and the respondent-Corporation was directed to handover the amount, along with interest accrued thereon, till date of his dismissal, along with future interest. The impugned judgment of the Labour Court, however, upheld the order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner is aggrieved by both these decisions.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows :-

(3.) Meanwhile, the petitioner came to be transferred to Pune. He alleges that harassment continued even in Pune and four different charge-sheets came to be filed. According to the petitioner, the false and frivolous charges, namely, failure to renew the insurance policies, change in insurance companies, branches, addressing letters to the State Ministers making allegations against the respondents etc. were levelled against him. The petitioner, therefore, filed Complaint (ULP) No.394 of 1992, seeking interim relief against the enquiry proceedings. However, his request was rejected and the enquiries were proceeded with by the respective enquiry officers. One enquiry was conducted by a former Judge of this court. The petitioner contended that he could not travel by train due to fracture to the left leg and despite this position, enquiries in respect of three charge-sheets dated 24 th September 1992, 12th October 1992 and 22 nd February 1993 were conducted in Mumbai and the enquiry in relation to the charge-sheet dated 6 th July 1993 was conducted in Pune. The petitioner is believed to have attended the enquiry in Pune, which was conducted by different enquiry officer, but he was denied the right to be represented by an Advocate. The reports of the enquiry officer in respect of the three enquiries conducted in Mumbai were submitted on 2nd November 1994 and in respect of the Pune enquiry on 17 th November 1994. The petitioner further contended that on 13 th March 1995, the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed, whereupon the Reference came to be filed. The Reference confirmed the order of dismissal, as a result of which this petition came to be filed. In support of his case, Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the enquiry officer was biased. According to him, the enquiries were bad in law for four reasons. Firstly, the venue ought to have been convenient for both the parties, but it was not. Secondly, the enquiry had to be held at the place within which the facts giving rise to the charge-sheet had taken place i.e. the place of the incident. This was not done, since the incidents complained of were at Kolhapur and Pune. Thirdly, he submitted that there was a demand to appoint an Advocate to represent him and that was denied. As a result, there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Lastly, he submitted that refusal to shift the venue from Mumbai by the enquiry officer, despite the fact that the Management had no objection to the same, had resulted in violation of rights / rules of natural justice.