WP/9316/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9316 OF 2010 Janalaxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd. & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Ashok Shriram Jadhav ... Respondent Mr.A.K. Jalisatgi a/w Avinash Jalisatgi for Petitioners Mr.M.S. Karnik for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 21, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petition has been preferred against the order of the Labour Court dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.36 of 2007 which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court by its order dated 15.9.2010 in revision. The Industrial Court has further granted 50% of the backwages. 2. Admittedly, no chargesheet was issued to the workman and, therefore, the petitioner bank has led evidence to prove the charge that the respondent had remained absent without permission from 4.4.2007 to 6.5.2007. While proving this charge evidence was led by the Petitioners of one of its officers in an attempt to prove that the respondent had unauthorisedly signed the muster roll on 11.4.2007 for the dates from 4.4.2007 to 10.4.2007. Both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have found that the respondent was kept out of service by the bank and was WP/9316/2010 : 2 : prevented from signing the muster roll. They have relied on the evidence of the Bank's witness who has stated in her deposition that one Shri Deshmukh had directed her to prevent the respondent from signing the muster roll. 3. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have found that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was illegal and not warranted. Although they have accepted the fact that the muster roll was signed for the period from 4.4.2007 to 10.4.2007 on 11.4.2007 itself, both the Courts have not found this to be a serious misconduct in the peculiar circumstances of this case. 4. In my opinion, the findings of both the Courts below that no misconduct had been committed by the respondent has been established and must be accepted. However, as regards backwages the Industrial Court has granted the same without there being any pleadings in the complaint regarding the petitioner's unemployment after his services were terminated. 5. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the Industrial Court to the extent that it awards backwages must be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court is confirmed. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.