-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.4260 OF 2004 WRIT PETITON NO.4260 OF 2004 WRIT PETITON NO.4260 OF 2004 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..Petitioner. V/s. Shivlingappa Parmashwar Patil ..Respondent. Mr.G.S.Hegde for petitioner. Mr.K.S.Bapat with T.R.Yadav for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Mr.Bapat waives service for the respondent. 4. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 5. This petition is directed against the order dated 19/07/2003 passed in the Revision (ULP) No.131/99 by the Industrial Court, Solapur confirming the order of the First Labour Court, Kolhapur dated 4/12/1998 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.55/92 whereby the enquiry -= : 2 : =- conducted by the M.S.R.T.C. into the charge-sheet dated 22/1/90 was held to be legal, fair and proper, however, the findings recorded therein were held to be perverse. 6. Heard Mr.Hegde appearing for the M.S.R.T.C. He submits that if at all the enquiry was legal, fair and proper, then, in that case, it was not open for the Labour Court to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 22/1/90 issued against the complainant and at the same time, it was not open for the Industrial Court to confirm the order of the Labour Court. 7. Mr.Bapat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent tried to support this order. However, he could not take his submission to its logical conclusion. 8. Mr.Bapat, lastly submits that the order of the First Labour Court, Solapur to the extent it sets aside the charge-sheet may be set aside. The petitioner be given liberty to prove mis-conduct before the Tribunal. Mr.Hegde submits, in that event the petitioner would lead evidence before the Tribunal to prove mis-conduct, if any. 9. Considering the rival submissions, the para No.2 of the operative part of the Judgment & order dated -= : 3 : =- 4/12/1998 in Complaint (ULP) No.55/92 of the First Labour Court is set aside. Consequently, to that extent the order of the Revisional Court stands modified. 10. Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings are remitted back to the First Labour Court, Solapur for hearing and disposal on merits in accordance with law. 11. Mr.Hegde assures that so long as the mis- conduct is not proved and requisite finding is not obtained from the Court, the respondent-employee shall be continued in the employment without prejudice to the rights of the M.S.R.T.C. However, this assurance shall not operate, if M.S.R.T.C. intends to try him for any other mis-conduct, other than the mis-conduct involved hereinabove. 12. All rival contentions are kept open. 13. Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. ******