Court upholds employee termination based on conviction order, emphasizing expeditious hearing for pending complaint.

The court upheld the termination of the employee based on a conviction order, ruling that the competent authority had the discretion to terminate without an inquiry. The court found the termination lawful, as the conviction itself was sufficient reasoning, especially with the appeal pending and sentence suspended. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were quashed, and the employee's application was dismissed. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious hearing of the pending complaint before the Labour Court.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to termination based on conviction order u/s Rule 10(a) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations.

Summary:

Issue 1: Termination based on conviction order

The petitioner challenged the impugned orders directing the respondent to continue in the job despite termination notice following a conviction order. The relevant rule states that an employee declared insolvent or convicted in a criminal court can be terminated without the necessity of an enquiry. The petitioner terminated the services based on the conviction order passed by the Competent Court. The Court held that the competent authority must exercise discretion and provide reasons in writing for the termination. The fact of the conviction itself is sufficient reasoning, especially considering the pending appeal and suspension of sentence. The Court found that the termination was within the framework of the law and rules, not a violation, and had the necessary ingredients as per the rule. Consequently, the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were quashed, and the respondent's application was dismissed.

Issue 2: Observations on pending complaint

While allowing the petition, the Court noted that the main complaint pending before the Labour Court should be heard expeditiously, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court allowed the petition in terms of the prayer clauses without imposing any costs.

---