The petitioner, a corporation, challenged two orders passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, related to a departmental inquiry conducted against a driver accused of negligent driving. Despite the Industrial Court declaring the inquiry fair, it ruled that the inquiry officer’s findings were perverse, which was later overturned by this writ petition. The court emphasized that once the fairness of an inquiry is admitted, the findings of the inquiry officer cannot be re-examined.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner: A corporation
   • Respondent: Retired driver of the petitioner corporation

2. Background:
   The respondent driver was involved in a fatal accident on 21.07.2007, leading to the death of a motorcycle rider and serious injuries to the rider’s wife. A departmental inquiry found the respondent guilty of negligent driving and imposed a punishment of reducing his basic pay by two stages permanently on 29.06.2012. The respondent retired on 28.02.2014 and subsequently filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging unfair labor practices.

3. Industrial Court’s Findings:

   • The inquiry was declared fair and proper.
   • Despite this, the findings of the inquiry officer were declared perverse and not maintainable.
   • The respondent's punishment was set aside.

4. High Court’s Ruling:

   • The writ petition was allowed, and the Industrial Court’s findings were quashed.
   • The court held that once the fairness of the inquiry was not disputed, the findings of the inquiry officer could not be challenged as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar.
   • The court also noted that the respondent filed the MRTU & PULP Act complaint after a delay without seeking condonation, and limitation rules were applicable.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act)

  • Section 28: Provides a 90-day limitation period to file a complaint under the Act.

• Limitation Act, 1963

  • Emphasizes that courts must dismiss suits or appeals filed after the prescribed period if no condonation of delay is sought.

Ratio Decidendi:

Once the fairness of an inquiry is admitted and the findings of the inquiry officer are not disputed, the Industrial Court cannot reopen the findings regarding misconduct. The High Court quashed the Industrial Court's findings based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar. Additionally, complaints filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without seeking condonation are liable to be dismissed.

Subjects:

Writ Petition, Negligent Driving, Fair Inquiry, Industrial Court Rulings, Unfair Labour Practices, Departmental Inquiry, Limitation Act, MRTU & PULP Act, Misconduct, Fairness of Inquiry, Negligence