1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 664/2010 Chandrakant Madhusudan Bhope and another V/s. Anil Ramakant Maind ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.M. P. Khajanchi, advocate for petitioner Mr.A.S. Chandurkar, advocate respondent Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 21st June 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 15th December 2006, passed by learned Labour Court, Chandrapur, below Exh. 16 in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 2006, as well as the Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Chandrapur Bench), Chandrapur, in Revision Application (ULP) No. 6 of 2007 and for dismissing the Criminal Complaint No. 6 of 2006 filed by the respondent (original complainant) against the petitioner. 3. It appears that, the petitioners’ are trustee of “Shrihari Balaji 2 Deosthan”, Chimur, lodged a report against respondent (complainant) with Chimur Police on 29th May, 2005 and accordingly police registered Crime No. 40/05 on 23rd June 2005, against the respondent for offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that the respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6,20,201/- belonging to the trust. On the ground of loss of confidence, the trustee issued a letter of termination of service to respondent (complainant). The respondent filed the Complaint (ULP) No. 71 of 2005 in the Labour Court, Chandrapur, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, with an application for interim relief. Learned Labour Court, on 19th September 2005, granted interim relief directing the trust to allow the respondent to work on his former post during the pendency of the complaint. 4. The trust had filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 47 of 2005 before learned Industrial Court, Maharashtra, (Chandrapur Bench), Chandrapur, which was dismissed mainly on the ground that looking to the allegations leveled against the respondent (complainant) were serious in nature and pertaining to misappropriation, and therefore, naturally employer would loose confidence and trust in such an employee and in normal course it would be unjust to foist upon employer such an employee and direct them to allow him to serve in the same capacity. However, the Industrial Court held that, the mistake committed by respondent can be rectified by recalling the order of termination and starting process of termination or dismissal afresh. Accordingly, it appears that the Trust had passed resolution withdrawing the termination of the respondent and to 3 reinstate him and resolution was communicated to the respondent on 19th November 2005, directing to join his duty within four days from the date of receipt of resolution. But the respondent filed Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 2006 before Labour Court against both the petitioners alleging that respondent no. 1 signed the order dated 19th November 2005, withdrawing the dismissal order dated 28th May 2005. On 14th February, 2006; Labour Court issued notice to petitioners in the form No. 18A under Regulation 62 (ii) in the Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 2006. The petitioner had raised preliminary objection by an application and prayed for dismissal of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the petitioner can not be termed as accused. However, learned Labour Court, Chandrapur, rejected the preliminary objection/application by passing an Order (Exh. 16) dated 15th December 2006. The said order was challenged in Revision before the Industrial Court, Chandrapur on or about 31st January 2007 which came to be dismissed on 21st July, 2010. 5. It is grievance of the petitioner that, after the interim order dated 19th November 2005, respondent was granted interim relief, was in fact, complied with by petitioner when they withdrew the dismissal order and decided to reinstate the respondent. Learned Labour Court failed to notice the observations made by the Court which had justified the public trust to recall the order of termination and to start the process of termination or dismissal of the respondent afresh, since the earlier order of termination dated 28th May 2005, was held as passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the termination order was withdrawn and the respondent was allowed to join his duties by the process of 4 reinstatement. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the contempt proceedings ought not to have been launched against the petitioners as the crux of the observations made by the Industrial Court were that the principle of natural justice ought to have been followed as against the respondent before his services can be terminated. 6. It is grievance of the petitioners that they can not be termed as accused as there was no question of non-compliance of the interim order by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, and therefore, there was no question of initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioners particularly when there is no commission of contempt of Court. Hence, it is prayed that the contempt proceedings may be dropped and the trial may proceed in the Labour Court on merits. 7. The petition is opposed on the ground that the respondent has requested President of the Trust to have him joined in services by application made on 9th November 2005. On 19th November 2005, the respondent was informed by the Trust with reference to order dated 19th September 2005, passed by learned Labour Court, Chandrapur in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 71 of 05, the order as regards termination of services dated 28th May 2005 was recalled pursuant to the resolution no. 3, dated 19th November 2005, by the Trust and pursuant to the order in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 71 of 2005 passed by Labour Court, Chandrapur. Thus, respondent was informed to submit joining report within 4 days of the receipt of order in case he desires to serve the Trust else it will be assumed that he had voluntarily sacrificed the service in Trust and further 5 action will be taken for non joining of service. It appears that the respondent by communication dated 22th November 2005, informed the President of the trust about the pending case in the Labour Court and treated letter dated 19th November 2005, as veiled threat calling upon the President of the Trust to attend the Labour Court to settle the entire case. The letter dated 22nd November 2005 (Annexed as “R-2”), filed along with Affidavit-in-Reply by the respondent indicate that the respondent insisted for settlements in the Labour Court since the case is pending and on that basis expressed his readiness to join the service. Looking to this communication between the President of the Trust and respondent, it does appear that the respondent was interested to have settlement of the entire case in the Labour Court and thus made conditional offer to join services on 22nd November 2005. 8. I think the question regarding services rendered in the past as also arrears of salary etc., and other consequential benefits pursuant to the reinstatement can be considered by the Labour Court on merits. Looking to the above correspondence between President of the Trust and respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings in the nature of contempt continuing in the Labour Court and all other questions regarding reinstatement, service rendered, arrears of salary etc., can be considered on merits by the Labour Court. Looking to the nature of correspondence, it does appear that there is no reasonable ground to proceed with contempt proceedings by the respondent as prima facie there was no question of non-compliance of the order. It is not disputed that the respondent is already in service after reinstatement pursuant to the 6 statement made by learned Advocate for the petitioner for reinstatement of the respondent. It is noted in order dated 21st December 2010. The respondent is in service and reinstated, accordingly, that being so, parties would be at liberty to agitate their grievances on merits in the Trial Court except application/complaint for contempt since it is prima facie observed that there was no question of non-compliance of order in view of the correspondence referred to and that there would be no reasonable ground to proceed with the contempt proceedings. The statement made by Shri. M. P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner on 21st December 2010 will remain operative till the decision on merits in the Labour Court. Proceedings be expedited in view of the nature of dispute. Rest of the questions except question of contempt are kept open to be decided in the Trial Court on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Punde