1 L.P.A.No. 145 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2010 Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and anr. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS Shashikant s/o Laxman Patil ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with Mr L.V. Sangit for the appellants; Mr Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.147 OF 2010 Shashikant s/o Laxman Patil ..APPELLANT VERSUS Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 30th March, 2011 PER COURT : Both these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The workman had been terminated from service for certain acts of misconduct. The Labour Court, in a complaint filed under item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of 2 L.P.A.No. 145 of 2010 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, found that the Bank was not able to prove that the workman had committed any act of misconduct. Therefore, the complaint was allowed and the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by that decision, the Bank filed a revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour Court. The Bank then filed a writ petition before this Court, in which it was contended that the workman had committed certain acts of misconduct for which his services have been terminated. According to the Bank, serious offences were committed by the workman and, therefore, he was not entitled to either reinstatement or back wages. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the workman was guilty of negligence in his duties and, therefore, while confirming the order of reinstatement with continuity of service has deprived the workman of 50% of the back wages payable to him. 3. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against these orders. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law while deciding the writ petitions. Having found that the workman was guilty of negligence and not misappropriation, the learned Single Judge has justifiably deprived him of 50% of the back wages. Letters Patent Appeals dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/lpa145.10