1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2007 (Pralhad Suryabhanji Chavan .v. MSRTC and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 28TH MARCH, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati whereby the petitioner's complaint under Item Nos.5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 for declaration that the impugned order issued by the respondent dated 29.01.2004 by which the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced by three stages came to be dismissed. The petitioner is a driver working with the respondent. The bus, which was being driven by the petitioner, met with an accident on 12.09.2003. The petitioner thereafter was charged for gross negligence resulting in serious loss to the corporation or 2 inconvenience to the public or both and for willful damage to work in process, vehicle or to any other property of the Corporation. The Departmental Enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer held after following the principles of natural justice, that the charges are proved. The respondent awarded punishment thereby the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced by three stages. This order of punishment was passed on 29.01.2004. The petitioner thereafter took voluntary retirement on 30.04.2004. The petitioner filed present complaint before the learned Industrial Court in the month of August, 2004. Hence, there occurred delay. The petitioner did not file separate application for condonation of delay. However, he made prayer for condonation of delay in complaint itself. The learned Member by giving reasons in para 10 of the impugned order held that the petitioner has not given sufficient cause to condone the delay. The learned Member has also gone into the merits of the matter and held that the enquiry is fair and proper. In so far as the punishment is concerned, it was held to be not disproportionate having regard to the gravity of the accident. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and after going 3 through the impugned judgment and order, I am of the opinion that no error or perversity in the impugned judgment was made out. In my opinion, the learned Member has passed correct order regarding condonation of delay as well as merits of the matter. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition in my jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.