Altaf Ahmed Sayyad v. The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. Osmanabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2704 OF 2018 (Altaf Ahmed Sayyad Vs. The Divisional Controller) MrS.N.Patne., Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.R.Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for State.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 14/03/2018 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court dated 15/01/2018 by which the Industrial Court has refused to condone the delay of 2 years and 7 months caused in filing the ULP complaint. Contention is that the petitioner had initially approached the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.27/2013 which was unconditionally withdrawn on 28/06/2013. He then approached the Industrial Court on 01/07/2016.

2.

The issue involved in this petitioner's case is that he was dismissed from service by way of punishment for mis-appropriation. The First Appellate Authority of the Corporation partly allowed the first department appeal by order dated 19/08/2013 and granted reappointment as an alternative to the order of dismissal. khs/MAR.2018/2704-d

3.

Reappointment amounts to a fresh appointment. This Court has dealt with an identical case in the matter of Anil Vaijnath Arbad Vs. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent, MSRTC, Parbhani Division, Parbhani 2016(1) LLJ 613 = 2016 (5) ALL MR 502 wherein this Court has laid down the law that a fresh appointment, by using the term "reappointment", would amount to imposing the order of dismissal, creating a break in service and then granting reappointment, since there cannot be a fresh appointment without there being a termination from service earlier. So also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Krishan Niwas [AIR 1997 SC 2349] has dealt with the issue of acceptance of fresh appointment and then posing a challenge which was held to be unsustainable.

4.

Nevertheless, the petitioner is not remediless since he will first have to challenge his order of dismissal dated 20/05/2013. He can therefore approach the Conciliation Officer by raising an industrial dispute u/s 2-A of the I.D.Act, 1947.

5.

Considering the above, no interference is called for in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of merits, is therefore, dismissed.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) khs/MAR.2018/2704-d