Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhanraj Gaikwad, was employed as a clerk with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) since 2008. He was charge-sheeted on 19/07/2014 for alleged misappropriation in issuing monthly student passes. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and a second show cause notice dated 24/12/2014 was issued proposing dismissal from service. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.5/2015 before the Labour Court under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), read with items 1(a, b, d, f, g) of Schedule IV, challenging the disciplinary proceedings. He also filed an application (Exh.U2) under Section 30(2) of the Act seeking interim relief to restrain the Corporation from issuing the order of punishment. The Labour Court initially granted ex-parte ad-interim relief but later, by order dated 29/03/2019, rejected Exh.U2 and vacated the protection. The petitioner then filed Revision (ULP) No.35/2019 before the Industrial Court under Section 44, which was also dismissed by interlocutory order dated 09/10/2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition No.13454 of 2019. The core legal issue was whether interim relief can be granted at the second show cause notice stage to prevent the employer from issuing the dismissal order, before the Labour Court frames issues on the validity of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in rejecting the interim relief application. The respondents contended that the interim relief would effectively decide the matter prematurely. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that granting such interim relief would be premature and would interfere with the employer's disciplinary authority. The Court noted that the Labour Court had not yet framed issues on the validity of the enquiry or the findings, and the second show cause notice was merely a proposal. The Court found no error in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Second Show Cause Notice Stage - MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Section 30(2) - The issue was whether a delinquent employee can be granted interim relief restraining the employer from issuing the order of dismissal at the second show cause notice stage, before the Labour Court frames issues on the validity of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Court held that such interim relief cannot be granted as it would pre-judge the disciplinary proceedings and the employer's right to impose punishment. The Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly rejected the application for interim relief. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a delinquent employee can be granted interim relief in the nature of preventing the employer from issuing the order of dismissal from service by way of punishment, at the Second Show Cause Notice Stage, prior to framing of the first two issues pertaining to the domestic enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court rejecting the application for interim relief.
Law Points
- Interim relief cannot be granted to restrain employer from issuing punishment order at second show cause notice stage
- Prima facie case not made out for interim injunction against disciplinary proceedings
- Section 30(2) of MRTU and PULP Act does not permit blanket stay on dismissal before enquiry findings are adjudicated
