1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1032 OF 1998 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ) at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr.Anandrao Nair Marg, Bellasis Road, ) Bombay Central, Bombay-400 008 )..Petitioners Vs Shri Ambadas Dattatraya Bagade ) Gawati Wada, Malegaon Camp, Dist. Nashik ) ..Respondent ---- Mr.G.S.Hegde for the petitioners. Mr.Sachin Thite i/by M.S.Karnik for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 17th November, 2009. Judgment :- 1 Heard both sides. Perused the record. This petition has been filed by the MSRTC against whose officers the present respondent had filed a complaint being ULP No.930/96 in the Industrial Court at Nashik. 2 The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a driver working with the petitioner-corporation. While he was driving the bus of the Corporation, he happened to knock down minor girl. A child was killed in the accident and the petitioners after inquiry, concluded that the respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In due course, after inquiry, he was dismissed from the service for proved mis-conduct. The first appellate authority confirmed the finding but the 2nd appellate authority took a sympathetic view and partly allowed his appeal and directed that he may be given fresh appointment. The 2 respondent took advantage of the order of the 2nd appellate authority and rejoined the services and it is an admitted position that thereafter he was continued in service. 3 That after rejoining his service on 8.5.1996 he subsequently filed a complaint being ULP No.930/96 on 4.11.1996. The said complaint was allowed by the Industrial Court, Nashik on 24.6.1997. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that once the respondent had taken advantage of the order of the 2nd appellate authority and rejoined the services, he was estopped from filing the complaint. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of MSRTC Vs. Prakash Tulshiram Pardeshi reported in 2008 II CLR 452 wherein it has been held so. In my view, the facts of the present case are identical with the facts in the impugned judgment. 4 In the circumstances, this Writ petition has to be allowed. Writ Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause-(a) and stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4