acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2002 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..Applicant.. Vs. Suresh Shankarrao Kokankara & Anr. ..Respondents. --- Mr. G.S. Hegde, for the Applicant. Mr. A. K. Johsatgi, for the respondent no.1. Mr. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C.: 1. This is an application u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the process issued by the Labour Court at Thane in Misc. Complaint (ULP) No.263 of 2000 and judgment dated 15.6.2001 rendered by the Labour Court at Thane in Misc. Complaint (ULP) No.263 of 2000, as well order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in revision application (ULP) No.62 of 2001. 2. Applicant the MSRTC is a statutory corporation. The respondent no. 1 was the employee of the applicant being a conductor of State Transport 1 Bus. The respondent no.1/Suresh allegedly committed certain misconduct. It was found that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers and had misappropriated the amount of fare. A show cause notice was given to him. He challenged the departmental action by filing the application bearing complaint (ULP) no. 322 of 1995 in the Labour Court at Thane. Interim relief was granted and direction was given to maintain status-quo i.e. not to terminate him from the service. The said complaint (ULP) no. 322 of 1995 was pending before the Labour Court. In the meanwhile, again second incidence occurred on 13.1.1999 wherein similar misconduct committed by the respondent no.1 was noticed. He was served with show cause notice and thereafter was dismissed from service w.e.f. 25.9.2000. The respondent no.1 filed complaint application bearing (ULP) no. 481 of 1999, wherein ad-interim relief was granted which was ultimately vacated on 18.8.2000. He preferred a revision application bearing (ULP no.100 of 2000, wherein no interim relief was granted. 3. After dismissal from the service, the respondent no.1 filed Misc.Criminal complaint (ULP) No. 263 of 2001 before the Labour Court, alleging that the status-quo order was violated by the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Labour Court issued process against the petitioner (respondent in (ULP) no.263/2001). The petitioner filed application 2 (Ex.C-5) to recall the process. The application/Ex.C-5 came to be dismissed. Therefore the petitioner preferred revision application (ULP) no.62 pf 2001 which also came to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Question involved in the application is whether the impugned order and the proceedings for alleged offence u/s 48(1)read with section30(2) of Maharashtra Recognition Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (short “MRTU & PULP Act, 1971”) is legal and proper. 6. At the outset, it is important to notice that the interim relief granted in the earlier proceedings of complaint (ULP) no.322 of 1995 was operative only to the extent of the said proceedings. The respondent no.1 was found guilty after due departmental inquiry. Though he was continued in the service as a result of interim relief granted in the context of complaint (ULP) no.322 of 1995, yet that did not give him licence to indulge in other misconduct. His subsequent acts of misconduct could be duly considered by the petitioner for taking appropriate departmental action. There was no blanket stay granted by the Labour Court to restrain the petitioner from taking any action in respect of the subsequent misconduct of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 was not dismissed from the service in the context of his first misconduct. He came to be dismissed on the ground that he was found guilty of the subsequent 3 misconduct. The interim prohibitory order does not give blanket protection to the respondent no.1 from any subsequent departmental action. In other words, by such interim order he could not be insulated from further departmental proceedings, which could have been adopted by the petitioner. 7. The courts below failed to appreciate that the interim order of status quo could operate only to the extent of the action which could have been taken in pursuance to the first departmental inquiry which was subject matter of challenge in complaint (ULP) no. 322 of 1995. The Industrial Court observed: “It is true that the status quo order passed in complaint (UL) no.322 of 1995 was not a blanket order. In other words, it means that the Respondent Corporation can take action against the employee in respect of another misconduct. Nevertheless, such action has got effect of violating existing order of status quo.” 8. Patent error committed by the Industrial Court is explicit from the above observations. Once it is found that the status quo order is not blanket order, it goes without saying that the dismissal of the respondent no.1 due to subsequent misconduct would not amount to violation of the terms of the interim order. In fact, the status quo order is rather vague and not befitting one in the given circumstances. The court is required to 4 pass specific order. One does not know whether it was status quo ante and whether it was meant that in no case, the respondent no.1 could not have been terminated from the service. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, I have no hesitation to hold that the criminal proceedings initiated on complaint application of the respondent no.1 are uncalled for. The said criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the application is allowed. The impugned order and the proceedings as mentioned above are quashed. (V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) 5