1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1752/2010 Bhagwan Gopichand Salunke .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Dhule Division Dhule .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Amol S. Sawant,Adv.for petitioner. Shri D.S.Bagul,Adv. for respondent. ... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE :16/11/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] By the present petition, the petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 18/2/2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No.21/2008. By the said order, the aforesaid Complaint filed by the petitioner under Schedule IV Item Nos.5,9 and 10 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act,for the sake of 2 brevity) came to be dismissed. 2] The petitioner was working as a driver with the respondent- Corporation. On 4/7/2004, the petitioner was driving S.T. bus on Kusumba to Mahergaon-Dhule road. According to the petitioner there was repair work being carried out on the road and there were road dividers and electric poles erected on the spot and it was not possible to drive the S.T. bus on the left side of the road. Therefore, the petitioner took the S.T. bus towards the right side of the road. It appears that a motor cycle came from the backside of the S.T. bus and was attempting to overtake the S.T. bus. According to the petitioner the motor cycle dashed against the pole erected in the line of the divider. There is some controversy as to whether a matador which was behind the motor cycle had given dash to the motor cycle which resulted in the motor cycle dashing with the electric pole. The person driving the motor cycle, because of the dash, died on the spot. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no fault on his part and the charge sheet against him was false. Departmental enquiry was conducted and it was held on the basis of the enquiry report that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the point of imposing punishment. Reply 3 was filed thereto. By order dated 30/5/2006 punishment was imposed on the petitioner whereby the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced permanently by 2 stages. This order was subjected to challenge before Industrial Court. The Industrial Court however, by the impugned order dismissed the Complaint of the petitioner. Hence the above petition. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the evidence of the pillion rider as deposed in the Magistrate’s Court that the motor cycle had infact dashed against the pole and not the bus. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the conductor’s deposition/statement in the departmental enquiry that because of poles and because of the work which was going on, it was not possible for the petitioner to ply the bus on the regular road and it was necessary to take the bus on the right side of the road. The learned counsel submitted that the person who had prepared the report was cross examined and even he has specifically deposed that due to erection of new electric poles in the line of divider, it was not possible to the driver to pass the bus between the old pole and new pole and therefore, the driver had taken the bus on the right side of the road. He therefore, submitted that the Industrial Court has not 4 considered certain vital evidence and this impugned order is therefore, erroneous and is required to be set aside. 4] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie, it does appear that the industrial Court has not considered and not dealt with certain vital evidence which ought to have been considered. The industrial Court in the impugned order has merely quoted the discrepancies in the evidence and has rejected the complaint. Apart from the above, on going through the impugned order, I find that the industrial Court, though has framed points of determination, has not pointwise dealt with the points of determination and has therefore, not given any distinct reasons based on the points for determination. The industrial Court has muddled up the reasons given on the points for determination and it is not possible to appreciate the reasons of the industrial Court on the points of determination which are distinct and separate. In my view, the matter requires to be remanded to the industrial Court for consideration afresh. 5] For the aforesaid reasons, the matter is remanded back to the industrial Court to decide the same afresh from the stage of arguments. While deciding the matter, the industrial Court shall not be 5 influenced by the present order or the impugned order and the Industrial Court shall frame the points of determination and answer the points of determination pointwise with separate and distinct reasons. The parties are directed to appear before the industrial Court on 20 th January 2011 at 11.00 a.m. and as such notice for hearing shall stand waived. The industrial Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30 th April 2011. 6] With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. [A.A.SAYED] JUDGE umg/wp1752-10