VISHNU MAROTI JADHAVversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD LATUR

2026:BHC-AUG:45578


                                                  1                       38.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 7083 OF 2025
                                    VISHNU MAROTI JADHAV
                                                VERSUS
                     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD LATUR
                                                   ...
                      Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar)
                       Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Tandale Pradeepkumar R.
                                                   …

                                       CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                       DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026


              PER COURT :

              1.           The petitioner, who is an employee of Zilla Parishad, Latur,

              was appointed on compassionate basis with Zilla Parishad on 25.02.2005.

              2.           While working under the Zilla Parishad, the allegations

              levelled against the petitioner are that since 17.12.2017 he was absent

              unauthorizedly. Accordingly, departmental action was initiated against

              him and finally on 16.05.2019 order of termination was issued against the

              petitioner. Against the said order of termination, the petitioner has

              approached the Labour Court, Latur, by filing ULP Complaint no.

              26/2019, challenging the order of termination. During pendency of ULP

              Complaint No. 26 of 2019, a preliminary issue below Exhibit 5 was

              framed, as to whether the enquiry conducted is in violation of principles
                                     2                         38.odt


of natural justice and whether the complainant proves that the findings of

the enquiry officer are perverse. Since the first issue itself has been

answered accordingly, the second issue could not survive. While passing

the order on the preliminary issue, the learned Judge of the Labour Court

has held that, the enquiry against the petitioner was initiated on

22.11.2018. During the pendency of the enquiry, the statement of the

complainant was recorded. Thereafter, the Presenting Officer examined

the witnesses. However, the complainant declined to cross-examine the

witness, though opportunity was provided. Thereafter, the Enquiry

Officer proceeded with the complaint and closed the enquiry.

3.           Upon recording such finding, the learned Judge of the

Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that sufficient opportunity of

hearing was not granted to the complainant and the enquiry was not

conducted in a legal, fair and proper manner, as such there was non-

adherence to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was held that

the enquiry stands vitiated. Against the said order dated 10.05.2023,

Revision ULP No. 31 of 2024 was filed before the Industrial Court at

Latur. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court, after examining the

record and the order passed by the Labour Court, has recorded that in fact

the enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner and ample opportunity

of hearing was granted to the complainant. He himself did not reply to
                                     3                       38.odt


the show cause notice issued to him. He has also refused to cross-

examine the witnesses and has refused to take assistance to defend

himself. It is also recorded that at the time of final argument he has

admitted his unauthorized absence. Therefore, the learned Judge has

arrived at the conclusion that the record reveals that ample opportunity

was made available to the petitioner who is the complainant and the

material on record proves his misconduct, therefore he has been rightly

held guilty.

4.             I have heard respective Advocates and perused the order

passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court, Latur. The

Labour Court, holding that the enquiry stood vitiated, appears to have

merely proceeded on the ground raised by the Petitioner that the

sufficient opportunity to lead evidence has not been granted to him.

5.             According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, after

examination of the employer's witness, the matter straight away

proceeded with the argument of the respective parties therefore, there was

a denial of opportunity to lead evidence. The Learned Judge of Industrial

Court has rightly observed that the complainant was not given any reply

to the show cause notice and had also refused to cross-examine the

witness. The denial to cross-examine the witnesses is also recorded by

the Labour Court. There is no finding recorded by both the Courts below
                                     4                         38.odt


that the Petitioner, raised any objection as regards denial of opportunity

for him to lead evidence. In fact, he has refused to cross-examine the

witnesses of the employer. Apart from that, he has also given admission

about his absence for the given period. It is also recorded that he has

refused to take assistance to defend himself. The petitioner has

participated in the enquiry proceeding, ample opportunity was available

to the petitioner to take assistance for defending his case before the

enquiry officer, but he has refused, this has been observed by the

Industrial Court, therefore, the finding of the labour Court that sufficient

opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to the Petitioner, is contrary

to the record.

6.           In view of the aforementioned background, I do not find any

case for interference is made out by the petitioner in the impugned order

dated 27/03/2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Latur. As such, the Writ

Petition does not warrant any interference and is accordingly dismissed.




                                     ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC