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 2026:BHC-AUG:45578 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