Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Thr. Its Secty. And ANR v. Isakkhan Yasinkhan And 3 ORS

2024:BHC-NAG:12996 1 wp 5584.2011.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No. 5584 of 2011 [Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Khamgaon, through Secretary, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldana and anr. Vs. Isakkhan Yasinkhan and ors.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. G. Kavimandan with Mr. M. R. Deshpande, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for respondent nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE J.

DATED : 29-11-2024 On 27-11-2024, following order was passed.

"Having heard both sides and having gone through the record, it appears that the petitioner - employer has terminated the services of respondent no.1 on the ground that he abandoned the services. The petitioner, however, has not issued notice to him nor is any enquiry made.

2] The Labour Court, by relying upon the judgment in the case of Shri Mahamadsha Ganishah Patel Vs. Mastanbaug Consumers' Co.op. Wholesale & Retail Stores Ltd. & Anr. [1997(3) ALL MR 719], has held that the employer must give notice to employee to return to duty and further that order of termination cannot be passed without holding enquiry into abandonment of service.

3] The learned Counsel for the petitioners failed to show that any notice was given to respondent no.1 or enquiry was made before terminating his services and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

4] At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify whether notice was given to respondent no.1 and enquiry was made. 5] Stand over to 29/11/2024."

2 wp 5584.2011.odt 2.

Mr. Kavimandan, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that he could not find that notice was given to respondent no. 1 and enquiry was made before terminating his services.

3.

In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed in terms of order dated 27-11-2024 with no order as to costs.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) wasnik