Bombay High Court
Shri. Satish Namdev Varude vs Zillah Parishad, Satara And Ors on 27 September, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
44. wpst 94465.20.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA
Digitally signed
by URMILA
PRAMOD
INGALE
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD Date:
INGALE 2022.09.28
18:14:48
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 94465 OF 2020
+0530
Shri Satish Namdev Varude ..Petitioner
vs.
Zilla Parishad, Satara and ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Meelan Topkar, for petitioner.
Mr. Ashok M. Misal, for Respondents No. 1 to 3.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Zilla Parishad. The order under challenge is passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit U- 2 in a complaint filed of unfair labour practice alleging that the action on the part of the respondent reducing his pay to the basic of the original post that he was holding, is illegal and unreasonable. The petitioner was appointed in 1989 as a Mechanical Supervisor. Thereafter he was promoted as a Junior Engineer. The petitioner was promoted in 2004 as a Sectional Engineer. Sometime in 18/12/2015, the petitioner 1
44. wpst 94465.20.doc was arrested by Anti-Corruption Bureau and he was in custody for two hours. The charge-sheet came to be issued some time in 2016. The inquiry concluded. The show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment indicated hereinbefore of reducing his basic pay in the post of Mechanical Supervisor. The interim relief prayed for by the petitioner under section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 was not granted. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On 26/10/2020, this Court protected the petitioner by granting appropriate interim relief.
2. The complaint which is of the year 2020 is pending in the Industrial Court. It is pointed out that in the criminal prosecution which was launched against the petitioner, being Special Case (ACB) No. 01 of 2017, the judgment is delivered on 28/07/2022 by the Special Court at Satara acquitting him of all the charges levelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquittal will have a bearing on the issue which is pending before the Industrial Court.
2
44. wpst 94465.20.doc
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the Industrial Court. In his submission, learned counsel states that after a full- fledged departmental inquiry, the authority found that the petitioner has breached the service conditions and therefore proposed the punishment which cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is further contended that the acquittal in the criminal case will have no bearing on the inquiry as the criminal prosecution and the charges therein was not the basis for proceeding against the petitioner departmentally. I have also gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 which is taken on record.
5. I find that the interim protection has been operating since 26/10/2020. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the Industrial Court is requested to hear and decide the complaint itself finally within a period of one year from the date when the copy of this order is placed on record for the brief reasons set out hereunder.
6. The criminal case has resulted in acquittal as recently 3
44. wpst 94465.20.doc as on 28/07/2022. Whether the said acquittal has bearing on the complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court is a matter that will be decided by the said Court. I do not wish to make any observations on that aspect of the matter and the parties are free to make submissions thereon.
7. Suffice it to observe that it is in respect of the incident which is the subject matter of the criminal case that resulted in the disciplinary inquiry and as no prejudice would be caused to the respondents having regard to the nature of punishment imposed, this is a fit case where the interim order operating since long could be continued till disposal of the complaint.
8. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of. Suffice it to observe that the interim relief granted by this Court to continue during the pendency of the complaint before the Industrial Court in the light of the above observations. No costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 4