1 WP2748/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2748 OF 2010 The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Latur Petitioner V E R S U S Rachappa s/o Sangramappa Dumne, Aged 58 years, Occ.Retired from Service, R/o in front of Mahindra Show Room, Panchawatinagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur Respondent Smt. Ranjana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th April, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Latur, and, learned Member of the Industrial Court, Latur, holding that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice. On perusal of the impugned Judgments, I found that there is no reason to interfere in them. The first and foremost reason is that the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court are on facts. He held that the order of dismissal of the respondent was unfair labour practice, because no charge could have been proved against him. The learned Member of the Industrial Court after discussing the facts held similarly. I even considered the factual aspect of the case. 2. In this case, the respondent as a bus-conductor was caught red handed after he sold five tickets of Rs.30/- each to passengers though the 2 WP2748/10 tickets were issued during the earlier trip. On the face of it, it appears that the respondent had resold the tickets which he has issued on the earlier trip. However, since the checker’s visit to the bus, the respondent has been offering an explanation, as to how he was compelled to retain the tickets, which he had issued during the earlier trip and was constrained to sell them to the passengers in the next trip. This explanation was not accepted during the domestic enquiry. However, both the Courts below found the explanation trustworthy and they held that the charge against the respondent could not have been proved. Accordingly, they concurrently held that the dismissal of the respondent was an unfair labour practice. There is no law point involved in this writ petition. Therefore, the petition should fail. Writ Petition stands dismissed. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner / Corporation requested that the amount deposited in the Court should not be handed over to the respondent at least for a period of four weeks. The request is rejected. The amount deposited by the petitioner / Corporation shall be handed over to the respondent. In view of this, Civil Application No. 4463 of 2011 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/274/10/15/4/11