Case Note & Summary
The Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation (Petitioner) challenged the order dated 29.07.2015 of the Labour Court at Nanded in Complaint (ULP) No.12/2014, which stayed the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2014 issued to the Respondent employee, Keroji Sitaram Dasare. The Respondent, a Leading Fireman, was charged with unauthorized absenteeism for 70 days. After a domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 10.02.2014 holding the charges proved. The Petitioner issued a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report, proposing punishment. The Respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice, and the Labour Court granted an ex parte ad-interim stay on 25.04.2014, later confirmed by the impugned order dated 29.07.2015, on the ground that the proposed punishment appeared shockingly disproportionate. The Petitioner's revision before the Industrial Court was dismissed on 06.10.2015. The High Court held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to stay the show cause notice at the pre-decisional stage, as the disciplinary authority had not yet taken a final decision on punishment. The Court observed that the employee had an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice, and the authority could consider the same before imposing punishment. Interfering at this stage would pre-empt the disciplinary process. The High Court quashed the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Interim Relief - Stay of Show Cause Notice - The Labour Court cannot grant interim relief by staying a second show cause notice issued after the enquiry report, as it amounts to interfering at a pre-decisional stage before the disciplinary authority has taken a final decision. The Industrial Court also erred in confirming such stay. (Paras 10-12) B) Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Pre-decisional Stage - The Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 has no jurisdiction to interdict disciplinary proceedings at the stage of a show cause notice, as the employee has an opportunity to reply and the authority may consider the same before imposing punishment. (Paras 10-12) C) Labour Law - Disproportionate Punishment - Prima Facie View - The Labour Court's prima facie view that the proposed punishment is shockingly disproportionate is premature and cannot be a ground to stay the show cause notice, as the disciplinary authority has not yet decided the quantum of punishment. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court had jurisdiction to stay the second show cause notice issued by the employer before the disciplinary authority had taken a final decision on the quantum of punishment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 29.07.2015 of the Labour Court and the order dated 06.10.2015 of the Industrial Court, and directed that the disciplinary authority may proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Labour Court cannot stay show cause notice before final decision
- Interim relief cannot be granted at pre-decisional stage
- Disciplinary proceedings cannot be interdicted mid-way
- Jurisdiction under MRTU and PULP Act limited to post-decisional stage
