1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.2198 of 2008 [Mohd. Sadique Sk. Hasan Vs. Divl. Controller, MSRTC] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.M. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 03rd June,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st April, 2008 passed by Industrial Court, Akola, in Revision Application [ULP] No. 74 of 2007, allowing the Revision Application and dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 30 [2] of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet, which was followed by an enquiry and notice of show-cause of dismissal. Instead of replying the notice, the petitioner has preferred to file a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice, which is registered as Complaint [ULP] No. 20 of 2007. 2 4. In the said Complaint, grievance of the complainant is in relation to commission of Unfair Labour Practice under Item 1 of Schedule- IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 5. In oral submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Khan reiterated that the complaint is for conducting an enquiry with undue haste and effecting dismissal in colourable exercise of employer's powers. 6. These are the guides of touchstone on which the grievance is to be tested. 7. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for issuing tickets of lesser denomination as well as failing to issue tickets. 8. For alleging that the enquiry is conducted in haste, petitioner relies on the sole circumstance, namely that the enquiry was posted on 30th July, 2001, on which date he was allotted a duty due to shortage of conductors, and enquiry was adjourned to 31st July, 2001, on which date he could not appear and the witnesses were examined in absence of complainant. These averments are made in para 4 of the complaint. The complainant has, however, failed to aver as to what was the destination or the route on which he was allotted duty, and as to what are 3 the circumstances which prevented him from appearing before the Enquiry Officer on 31sth July, 2001. Without explaining the reasons of his absence or the grounds which may have justified his absence, he urges that the enquiry should not have been conducted in his absence. 9. The Complainant then alleged that Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against him, however, nothing is placed on record to demonstrate said prejudice. The complainant has failed to file his defence statement before filing the Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice, which could have been a source of knowledge for the Court to understand what are his exact grievances about the proceedings. It is in this background, the complaint was proceeded. 10. Learned Trial Court, however, found that the complainant had made out a prima facie case. 11. In the Revision Application filed by the employer, the Revisional Court found that the Trial Court had given undue weightage to words of caution mentioned in some of the reported Judgments, and also found that the ratio was not correctly applied. The Revisional Court further found that no questions relating to unfairness of enquiry were formulated and in such situation, grant of interim relief is wholly impermissible. 4 12. This Court has examined the matter, and found that it is a case of defalcation. The complainant is not rendered remedyless if, unfortunately, for him, the order of dismissal is passed and it is still open for him to file a complaint in that eventuality. In such a situation, entire record of enquiry can be brought before the Court and the point as to enquiry being improper can be examined by the Labour Court. Unless at least, prima facie, it would be possible for the Labour Court to hold that unfair labour practice has been engaged in, no interim relief could be granted. 13. In the present case, for a case to be worthy of interference even before the action was completed, it was the duty of the workman to show from record that the action of the employer is so grossly erroneous to come within the tooth of definition of Unfair Labour Practice, grant of interim relief would be wholly impermissible. The action of employer is not yet complete. The magnitude of nature of Unfair Labour Practice has to be so grave and shocking that Court would feel it worthy to grant interim relief. The facts, which are emerging from record, do not so shock and hence order of Industrial Court does not call for interference. 14. If the action is completed, it would be open to the Labour Court to de novo examine 5 the matter and findings and observations contained in this Court's order would not come in the way of the petitioner if he is required to file a complaint in the event employer passes an order adverse to the petitioner. 15. Hence, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge |Hedau|