ASHISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Patil for the petitioners, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 called, absent. Same position in morning session. Rule was issued on 23rd December. 2004.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 asserted that in furtherance of order passed by learned Judge of the Labour court on 21st October, 2003, the petitioner No. 1, as Managing Director or the petitioner No. 2 - Regional Manager, did not produce the documents before the Labour Court. The compliance that was carried by the authorities of the petitioners, according to Respondent No. 2, was not in tune with the directions issued by the Labour Court and, therefore, Respondent No. 2 filed an application, seeking orders from the Court to issue notice for disobeying the orders passed by it on 21st October, 2003. This made, the learned Judge of the Labour Court to issue a show cause notice dated 1.12.2003 upon the petitioners. Same is questioned before this court.

(3.) I find substance in the narration of Mr. Patil that issuance of such show cause notice adds to a miserable situation and more leans to abuse of process of law. The directions, which Respondent No. 2 desired were indeed complied with. However, since Respondent No. 2 felt that he entered into some more documents, it would not invite to issuance of show cause notice as to non-compliance of the order. The Court could have resorted to the provisions of Order XI of CPC. The petitioners had appeared before the learned Judge, filed reply and explained the situation. The Managing Director's office is at Mumbai, and normally, the affairs of MTDC are looked by the Regional Manager, who was prosecuting the matter on behalf of the Corporation. Taking these facts into consideration, the learned Judge of the Labour court should not have issued the show cause notice, as apparently there was compliance. If the Respondent No. 2 felt that it was inadequate or deficient, there were other ways and means to get it clarified. Therefore, the show cause notice dated 1st December, 2003 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute as above.