Bombay High CourtWP/7192/2014dismissedrule discharged

Shivaji Laxman Kamble v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Washim And Another

2015-08-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp7192.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7192/2014 Shivaji Laxman Kamble ..Versus..

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - 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.

DATE : 26.8.2015 None appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called out in the morning session. The matter was kept back. In the afternoon session again none appeared for the petitioner. Heard Shri Amol Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court rejecting the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the suspension order. In paragraph no.14 of the impugned order the Industrial Court has recorded as follows :- "14.

The respondents have come with a specific case that the complainant was arrested in the crime for the offence under the prevention of Anti Corruption Act,

2 wp7192.14 the complainant was behind the bar and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim the reliefs. The documents as produced on record further prima facie disclosed that on 12.9.2014 itself the respondents have issued the order as per the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Zilla Seva, Shiksha Va Appeal, 1964. The complainant has further failed to bring any other circumstances on record to show prima facie that his suspension is any way illegal, against the provisions of law and thus, amounts to unfair labour practice."

The Industrial Court has taken a possible view and it cannot be said that it suffers from any patent illegality or perversity. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.