Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Vishwanath Daulatrao Bhange on 7 April, 2016
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2001
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through petitioner No.2.
2. The Joint Director,
Divisional Agricultural Department,
PETITIONERS
(Extension) Latur.
VERSUS
Vishwanath Daulatrao Bhange,
Age-55 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
Dist.Latur RESPONDENT
Mr.A.P.Basarkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Chetan T.Jadhav h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for the
respondent
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 07/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This matter was Admitted by order dated 26/11/2001 and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause "C" which reads as under :-
"Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the execution and operation of impugned judgment and order dated 19/03/2001 passed by the Ld. Judge, Labour Court at Latur in khs/April 2016/4666-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 ::: 2 Complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 may kindly be stayed."
2. I have heard the learned AGP on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jadhav h/f Mr.K.M.Nagarkar on behalf of the sole respondent, at length.
3. Peculiar facts are noticed in this matter as under :-
[a] The impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 19/03/2001 thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 has been directly challenged in this Court without exhausting the remedy of revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1977.
[b] After the respondent was convicted in relation to the suicide of his wife u/s 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted for 3 years by the Trial Court and then by this Court on 30/07/1996, the petitioner terminated the services of the respondent by order dated 05/11/1999 to be made effective retrospectively from 12/11/1990.
[c] The respondent has been in service from 1965 till 28/09/1998 despite his conviction.
4. Ordinarily, considering the law laid down by this Court in several matters and in the matter of Engineering Employees Union Vs. Devidayal Rolling and Refinaries Pvt.Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 40 = 1986 Mh.L.J. 331, this petition would not have been entertained since the khs/April 2016/4666-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 ::: 3 statutory remedy u/s 44 has not been availed of. However, I am not remitting the petitioners to the revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court since this matter is pending final adjudication for almost 15 years.
5. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Aasaram Raibhan Dhage Vs. Executive Engineer, 1989 (2) CLR 331, has laid down the law that termination with retrospective effect, be it of a daily wager or temporary or probationer or a permanent employee, is unforeseen in law and is unsustainable. Needless to state, the order of termination issued by the petitioners on 05/11/1999 making it retrospectively effective from 12/11/1990, therefore, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
6. It is equally well settled that on conviction of an employee for an offence punishable under the IPC or for that reason under any Law, entitles the employer to terminate the services of such an employee purely on the ground of his conviction. In the instant case, the respondent was convicted by judgment dated 12/11/1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.121/1990 holding him guilty for abetting the suicidal death of his wife. By judgment dated 30/07/1996, this Court sustained the conviction in Criminal khs/April 2016/4666-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 ::: 4 Appeal No.309/1990. Conviction of the respondent would, therefore, lead to his termination without the requirement of conducting any enquiry.
7. In the light of the above, the termination of the respondent therefore could have been deemed to be effective from 13/07/1996.
However, since the respondent has actually worked till 28/09/1998, his termination from service shall therefore be deemed to be effective from 28/09/1998 as he was not on duty thereafter till 05/11/1999.
8. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 19/03/2001 granting full back wages from 28/09/1998 till 31/03/2000 is quashed and set aside. The complaint (ULP) No.23/1999 is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Nevertheless, since the respondent has raised an issue of his retiral benefits which is being opposed by the petitioners on the ground that the termination can be said to be on account of moral turpitude, I am not required to deal with the said issue in this petition.
10. As such, in the event the respondent raises the said issue of khs/April 2016/4666-d ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 ::: 5 payment of his retiral benefits before any competent authority, the same shall be considered by the said authority on its own merits and in accordance with Law.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/4666-d
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:24:34 :::