1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4586 OF 2009 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dist.Aurangabad. ..Petitioner V/s Kisan Asaram Salunke Age : 57 years, Occ : Service, R/o Mali Ghogargaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad. ..Respondent ... Mr.Smt.R.D. Redy, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondent. ... (CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J.) DATE : 05th December, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Smt.R.D. Reddy, the counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.K.F.Shingare, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petition raises exception to the order 2 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad dated 23.01.2009 in Revision (ULP) No. 6/2009. The respondent-employee is serving as driver with the petitioner-Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent-employee was responsible for causing vehicular accident. Admittedly, the enquiry was therefore initiated against the respondent. The proceedings of enquiry is almost completed and show- cause-notice is directed against the respondent, wherein the punishment of termination is proposed. 3. The respondent has submitted his reply to the proposed punishment. In respect of the punishment as proposed by the enquiry officer, the respondent- employee immediately after receipt of the notice dated 22.09.2008 has approached the Labour Court by presenting the complaint (ULP) No.82/2008, wherein the show-cause-notice issued by the Employer is subjected to challenge. An application came to be tendered by the respondent herein, seeking stay to the operation of the notice and also requested for injecting the employer from imposing the punishment. 3 4. However, the learned Judge of the Labour Court after considering the above contentions was pleased to reject application U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.82/2008 on 02.01.2009. The employee, thereafter, approached the Industrial Court by presenting the revision bearing (ULP) No.6/2009. The Revisional Court, however, after considering the above contentions, was pleased to remit matter back to the Labour Court, with a direction to extend an opportunity of hearing to the employee and it was directed to the Labour Court to pass orders afresh. 5. I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. It is to be noted that the only notice of proposed penalty sought to be imposed by the employer is subject matter of challenge before the Labour Court, at the instance of employee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the parties should permit the enquiry proceedings to go on. The respondent-employee shall submit his reply to the show-cause-notice, and thereupon, the employer should be permitted to pass the final orders. The final orders, those would be passed by the 4 management, can be made subject matter of the complaint in dispute that can be raised before the appropriate Court. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the Judgment in the matter of Bajirao Subhana Kenjale V/s M/s Vidyut Metallics P. Ltd., and another, decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter in Writ Petition No.6198/2008 on 24th September, 2008. In identical situation, this Court placing reliance on the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union V/s Star Oxides and Chemicals Ltd., & ors., reported in 2001 III L.L.J. (Suppl.) 54 and Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., & anr. V/s Vilas Digambar Kamble, reported in 2002 III C.L.R. 308, and had issued certain directions. In view of this, I am of the opinion that in the instant matter also, by issuing certain directions, the enquiry proceedings can be permitted to continue. At the same time, the interest of workman also needs to be protected. 6. I, therefore, propose to pass identical directions as issued in the judgment, cited supra. 5 Hence the following order :- (i) The respondent-employee shall tender his reply to the show cause notice/report of the Enquiry Officer within three weeks from today. (ii) The management shall after receiving reply, considering all the relevant circumstances and the reply of the respondent, pass appropriate orders, and the said order passed by the employer shall be communicated to the employee/respondent. (iii) After receipt of communication of the order by the employee-respondent herein, the management shall not give effect to such order for a period of four weeks. (iv) In the event, the respondent-employee choses to challenge the order that may be passed by the management, in terms of directions contained in paragraph no.(iii) 6 above, the Labour Court would consider the application, if any, that may be presented for grant of interim relief by the respondent-employee on its own merits and in accordance with law. (v) In view of the directions set out above, the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad on 23.01.2009 in Revision (ULP) No.6/2009 is quashed and set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE GAS/wp4586.09