BECK AND COMPANY Vs. SUSHILKUMAR MADHAV BHIDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal came up for admission on 19 th July, 2011 when it was decided to hear the matter finally today. Hence appeal admitted. Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent appears and waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.

(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11 th April, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 9475 of 2010 by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent workman and set aside the finding on issue No. 4 framed by the Labour Court i.e. whether the misconduct is proved by acceptable evidence in enquiry.

(3.) The respondent was an employee of the appellant company. While he was in service, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. At the time when the departmental enquiry was in force, the respondent filed a complaint before the 2 nd Labour Court, Pune, being Complaint (ULP) No. 277 of 1995 under Section 28 read with items 1 (a), (b),(c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU & PULP Act"). The Labour Court framed various issues and by a judgment and order dated 15 th July, 1996, dismissed the said complaint. While dismissing the said complaint, the Labour Court observed in the order that in case any punishment order is passed, the same may not be implemented for seven days from the date of the said order. As pointed out earlier, the respondent approached the Labour Court under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. At that stage no final decision was taken in the inquiry proceedings. One of the points which was argued by the respondent in earlier proceedings was that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and that misconduct is not established on the basis of evidence in the enquiry. The aforesaid order of dismissal of the complaint was challenged by the respondent before the Industrial Court at Pune by way of revision application being Revision Application (ULP) No. 89 of 1996. The said revision was heard by the Industrial Court, Pune and the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order of the revisional Court, the respondent preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3971 of 1998. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition against which the respondent herein preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal St. No. 40950 of 1998. In the interregnum, the appellant management already passed an order of dismissal against the present respondent. The Division Bench of this Court, in view of the subsequent development, vide its order dated 11 th April, 2005 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and disposed of the said Appeal on the ground that the Appeal has become infructuous in view of the subsequent event i.e. dismissal order passed against the respondent. The Division Bench, however, gave liberty to the respondent to challenge the said order. The Division Bench also observed in the said order by way of clarification that the impugned orders shall not come in the way of the appellant (respondent herein) in challenging dismissal order in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.