DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER M S R T C WARDHA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question as to whether a contemplated action for dismissal or discharge amounts to an unfair labour practice, cognisable under section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner Divisional Controller as a competent authority held departmental enquiry into the conduct of respondent No. 2 leading to an accident on 8-7-1984 while driving State Transport Bus No. MHQ 8326 resulting in death of a Luna Moped driver. In a departmental enquiry, the charges were held to have been proved. The petitioner, therefore, taking into account the previous record and seriousness of misconduct on 25-3-1988 issued a show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal. The respondent No. 2 thereunder was called upon to submit his say within 3 days.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 instead of submitting his explanation to show cause notice, filed a complaint under section 28 of the Act. According to him, Discipline and Appeal Rules constitute an agreement between the parties as contemplated under Item 9 of Schedule IV. Clause 7 of the Rules provides for awarding of punishment for good and sufficient reasons. The respondent in the complaint has averred "the complainant is approaching this Honble Court, mainly for the reasons that there is a total absence of good and sufficient reasons for awarding punishment and, therefore, there is a failure to implement the terms of discipline and appeal procedure which is in the form of agreement between the Corporation and its workmen". The respondent, therefore, sought a declaration that the petitioner has engaged in and/has been engaging in the unfair labour practice enumerated under Item 9 of Schedule IV. He further sought quashing of show cause notice dated 25-3-1988.