M/S Denso vs Mr. Manges

M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade

Case Details

Case Type	Application IT
Filing Number	410/2019
Registration Number	12/2019
Filing Date	05-08-2019
Registration Date	05-08-2019

First Hearing Date	06th August 2019
Decision Date	19th March 2020
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	1-Member, 1St Industrial Court, Pune.;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Allowed;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd., ;

Petitioner Advocate

D. V. Kulkarni;

Respondent Name

Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade;

Respondent Advocate

D. B. Sharmale;

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

19-03-2020

: 1 : CNR No.MHIC120004102019 Application (IT) No. 12/2019 (Judg). CNR No.MHIC120004102019 Filed on : 03.08.2019 Registered on : 05.08.2019 Decided on : 19.03.2020 Duration : YEARS MONTHS DAYS 00 07 16 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT, MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE Application IT No. 12 of 2019 IN Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2019 M/s. Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt Ltd Gat No. 1228/2 Shikrapur Pune 412 208 .... Applicant … V/s … Mangesh Vishnu Kanade Near Madyamik Shala Sanaswadi Tal. Shirur Pune 412 208 .... Opponent Coram : SHRI. S. R. TAMBOLI, Member. Appearances : Shri. D.V. Kulkarni Advocate for Applicant. Shri. D.B. Sharmale Advocate for Opponent. : J U D G M E N T : (Dated 19.03.2020) In the instant application, the Applicant has prayed for grant of the approval as per Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, I.D. Act only). 2. In brief, the case of the Applicant is that Applicant is a company engaged in manufacturing of Air Conditioners of Fiat Company. Opponent was employee of the Applicant. He was serving as Operator in : 2 : CNR No.MHIC120004102019 Application (IT) No. 12/2019 (Judg). Production Department. On account of his misconduct, chargesheet was served on him. Full fledged enquiry came to be conducted against him. Opportunity was given to him to defend his case. Enquiry Officer recorded findings of the guilt of the Opponent. Taking into consideration all circumstances, Opponent came to be dismissed from the services. Reference (IT) No. 3/2019 is pending between the applicant and workers union functioning in the Applicant company. The dismissal of Opponent has no connection with the pendency of said reference. The action of the Applicant has not been taken by way of victimisation. After the passing of dismissal order, Applicant has paid one month’s wages to Opponent on the date of serving of dismissal order. Hence, approval be granted to the action of the Applicant as per section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. 3. Opponent appeared in the matter and filed say cum purshis interalia contending that Applicant has illegally terminated services of the Opponent. He has challenged the dismissal order before Labour Court. Opponent has no objection for granting the application subject to condition that Opponent has right to raise all his grievance in the matter pending before the Labour Court. 4. I have heard ld. Counsel for both the parties. In view of the submissions of the ld. Counsel for both the parties, following points arise for my determination. My findings and reasons thereon are as under : POINTS FINDINGS 1. Whether Applicant is entitled for the relief of approval as per Section 33 (2) (b) of the In the I.D. Act ? Affirmative. 2. What order ? As per final order. : 3 : CNR No.MHIC120004102019 Application (IT) No. 12/2019 (Judg). R E A S O N S Point no. 1: 5. It is undisputed that Opponent was serving with the Applicant. Opponent came to be dismissed from the service. Applicant is coming with the case that the Opponent has been dismissed from the service on the account of his proved misconduct. The action of the Applicant has no concern in regard to the industrial dispute as raised in Reference (IT) No. 03/2019. 6. Ld. Counsel for Opponent submitted that the Opponent has challenged the order of dismissal before ld. Labour Court. He has raised all the grounds challenging the order of dismissal from the service. Opponent has no objection for granting the application on condition that he has right to raise his grievance before the ld. Labour Court. 7. From the saycumpurshis filed by the Opponent, it does not appear that the dismissal of applicant has any connection with pendency of Reference (IT) No. 3/2019. Applicant has paid one months’ salary at the time of service of dismissal order. Opponent has right to raise all his dispute before ld. Labour Court. Hence, this Court thinks it proper to grant approval to the action taken by Applicant. In these circumstances, I answer Point No. 1 in the affirmative and pass following order : ORDER 1. Application is allowed. 2. Approval is granted to order of dismissal dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Applicant to Opponent as per Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. : 4 : CNR No.MHIC120004102019 Application (IT) No. 12/2019 (Judg). 3. No order as to the costs. Date : 19.03.2020 (S. R. TAMBOLI) Member, Place : Pune. Industrial Court, Pune. Argued on : 13.03.2020. Judgment dictated on : 19.03.2020. Judgment transcribed on : 20.03.2020. Judgment checked on : 20.03.2020. Judgment signed on : 20.03.2020. nsp 2020-03-21T11:45:56+0530 Sardar Rajekhan Tamboli

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade is M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd..

The Respondent in case M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade is Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade.

The case against Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanadewas filed on 05-08-2019 by M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd..

The status of case M/S Denso Thermal Systems Pune Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Mangesh Vishnu Kanade is Case Disposed.