Bombay High CourtWP/3462/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Akola And Others v. Sau. Suman Sahadeo Natkar

2016-07-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3462.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITON NO.3462/2016 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola, Distt. Akola and others ..VS..

Sau. Suman Sahadeo Natkar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 8.7.2016.

Heard Shri A.D. Girdekar, Advocate for the petitioners - employer.

The order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the revision application filed by the employer and maintaining the order passed by the Labour Court by which the complaint filed by the respondent - employee came to be allowed, is challenged.

The employee had filed complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act contending that she was in the employment since 26th December, 1996 till 29th November, 2003, that she could not attend duties for some period because of illness and inspite of her attempts to resume the duties she was not permitted to do so and ultimately her services were terminated by the order dated 3rd May, 2010 without enquiry and without following the required procedure. The employee contended that the termination order was illegal and prayed that the employer be directed to reinstate her with consequential benefits. The Labour Court after considering the documents and the evidence on record, by the order dated 16th November, 2014, concluded that the employer indulged in unfair labour

2 wp3462.16 practice by issuing the termination order dated 3rd May, 2010. The Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate the employee with continuity of service. The prayer of the employee for back-wages was rejected.

The employer had filed revision which is dismissed by the impugned order. The Industrial Court has independently considered the documents and evidence on record and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The findings recorded by the subordinate Courts are based on proper appreciation of material on record. I do not see any patent illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.