Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2016. Case: Nanded District Central Co-Operative Bank Vs Yadav. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Ingole Patil, Advocate and For Respondents: Ram S. Shinde, Advocate |
| Judges | R. V. Ghuge, J. |
| Issue | Labour and Industrial Law |
| Judgement Date | February 09, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. V. Ghuge, J.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.10.2013 delivered by the Labour Court, Nanded by which the Complaint ULP No. 16/2006 filed by the respondent was allowed and he was granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 11.05.2006 till his retirement on 31.10.2010. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 09.07.2015 by which Revision ULP No. 183/2013 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
-
The strenuous contention of Mr. Ingole Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was charged with misappropriation. Grave and serious charges have been leveled upon him. Yet, the Labour Court has casually considered the enquiry conducted against the respondent as per rules and has interfered with the findings and enquiry by its Part-I judgment dated 05.12.2012 and has set aside the enquiry. By the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2013, the complaint has been allowed in its totality.
-
Mr. Patil further submits that the error committed by the Labour Court has been committed even by the Industrial Court while dealing with its revision petition. The Industrial Court has merely aggrieved with the conclusions of the Labour Court without proper application of mind. The seriousness and the gravity of the charges were not considered. An employee who has committed misappropriation has been virtually rewarded with reinstatement and full back wages.
-
Mr. Patil further submits that there was no evidence laid by the respondent-employee before the Labour Court after the Part-I judgment dated 05.12.2012 was delivered. In short, there was no evidence laid by the respondent on back wages. Yet, the Labour Court has casually and mechanically granted 100% back wages which is against the settled position of law. He therefore prays for quashing of the impugned judgments and for the dismissal of Complaint ULP No. 16/2006.
-
Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the respondent-employee has strenuously defended the impugned judgment. He submits that Part-I judgment dated 05.12.2012 has been accepted by the petitioner-bank and has not challenged the said judgment. As such, the conclusion of the Labour Court setting aside the enquiry for reasons set out in Part-I judgment have attained finally. The said enquiry now cannot be gone into as the same has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial