: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 PETITION NO. 5927 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5927 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5927 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road ] Transport Corporation, ] having its office at Vahatuk ] Bhavan, Bellasis Road, ] Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, ] Bombay Central, Bombay 400008 ]..Petitioners versus 1. Shri Waman Ravaji Wagh, ] At & Post - Zadi, Tal : ] Malegaon, Dist: Nashik ] 2. Presiding Officer, ] Industrial Court, Nashik ]..Respondents Mr. G. S. Hegde for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the Order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court reinstating the respondent No.1 in service. :2: 3. The respondent No.1 who was working as a conductor was dismissed from service for absenteeism. During the period from January 1989 to January 1990 he was found to have been absent for 131 days. During the same period he was on leave for 87 days. 4. During the 24 years of service, he had been punished 24 times, out of which 10 times he was punished for absenteeism. In fact on 20.6.1986 he was dismissed for the misconduct of absenteeism but the appellate authority reinstated him in service with effect from 12.3.1987. 5. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted. The punishment was not shockingly disproportionate. However, the respondent No.1 ought not to have been dismissed for the period of his absence he had sent leave application from time to time to the petitioners. The Order of the Labour Court does not contain any reasoning and is clouded with confusion. The Labour Court did not see that the action had been taken against the respondent No.1 for absence for 131 days during the period from January 1989 to January 1990. This period was different from the 87 :3: days when he was on leave. The Labour Court has not even pointed out the days on which the respondent No. 1 was treated as if absent, even though he had applied for leave. The findings of the Labour Court are vitiated by non application of mind and perversity and deserve to be set aside. In revision the Industrial Court simply refused to interfere with the Order on the principle that howsoever erroneous conclusion it is not liable to be interfered with its limited powers under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Order of the Industrial Court suffers from a misunderstanding of the scope of revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, which undoubtedly allows the Industrial Court to interfere with such findings as have been arrived at perversely and which result in manifest injustice. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned Orders are hereby set aside. Rule allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows:- "That by a writ of certiorari or any other "That by a writ of certiorari or any other "That by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order, this appropriate writ direction or order, this appropriate writ direction or order, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Judgment and Award dated 29/5/97 aside the Judgment and Award dated 29/5/97 aside the Judgment and Award dated 29/5/97 passed by Labour Court Nashik in Complaint passed by Labour Court Nashik in Complaint passed by Labour Court Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No. 45 of 1991 and the Judgment and (ULP) No. 45 of 1991 and the Judgment and (ULP) No. 45 of 1991 and the Judgment and Order dated 9/7/97 passed by Industrial Order dated 9/7/97 passed by Industrial Order dated 9/7/97 passed by Industrial Court Nashik in Revision (ULP) No. 113 of Court Nashik in Revision (ULP) No. 113 of Court Nashik in Revision (ULP) No. 113 of 1997" 1997" 1997" :4: Order accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)