1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1660/2010 ( Sachin S/o Pundlikrao Waghmare -: versus :- Joint Director of Agricultural, Amravati Division, Amravati & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Jagdale, Adv. for petitioner. Shri J.B. Jaiswal, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 15, 2010. This Court issued notice for final disposal on 9th April 2010 and protected the services of petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was allowed to join duties after judgment of Labour Court dated 26/10/2005 in his favour. Adv. Shri Jagdale states that name of petitioner was sponsored by employment exchange and after interview he was appointed. In the appointment order dated 23/2/2001 there was a condition that his character should be found to be 'satisfactory' in verification by Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police on 10/3/2002 submitted a report and communicated that offences vide Crime No.199/2000 under Sections 498-A, 323, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code are registered against the petitioner and matter was pending before competent authority. Because of this report, services of petitioner were terminated without previous notice and opportunity on 20th 2 of June 2002. Petitioner approached Labour Court vide U.L.P. No.40/2002. Labour Court, Yavatmal delivered judgment on 26/10/2005 and found that there was no suppression of material fact by petitioner and without giving him any opportunity in the matter he should not have been terminated. The said judgment of Labour Court came to be challenged vide Revision U.L.P. No.69/2005 under section 44 of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act by respondents. Vide judgment dated 18/3/2010 Industrial Court, Yavatmal found that the petitioner did not fulfill terms and conditions of employment and hence has set aside the judgment of Labour Court. Adv. Shri Jagdale states that view taken by Industrial Court is unsustainable as it cannot be said that character of petitioner was not found satisfactory. He placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in A.I.R.1999 Supreme Court 912 (Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda V/s. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and another) to urge that an opportunity to show cause should have been given to petitioner before ordering his termination. He has further stated that thereafter by the judgment of Trial Court delivered in R.C.C.146/2000 the petitioner was acquitted by J.M.F.C., Ner on 18th of January 2005. According to him, complaint was filed by his wife and was matrimonial discord, it has nothing to do with his character. Learned A.G.P. Shri Jaiswal has supported the impugned judgment. He states that because of verification report received from Superintendent of Police, as the terms of appointment were very clear the action has been taken. Though Industrial Court has made some comments about suppression of facts, it is nobody's case that petitioner 3 suppressed any material facts from his employer. Condition in appointment order on which respondents are relying warrants that his character should be found to be satisfactory by Superintendent of Police. The registration of offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code by itself should not have been taken into account to conclude that his character was not satisfactory. If, any such inference was to be drawn, petitioner ought to have been given necessary opportunity. Facts here, clearly show that the J.M.F.C. on 18/1/2005 has acquitted the petitioner of the offences under Section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. No charge was framed in relation to offneces under Sections 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. The matter, therefore, shows that had opportunity been given to petitioner, situation would have been different. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner procured employment by playing fraud. In this situation, the impugned judgment of Industrial Court, Yavatmal dated 18/3/2010 in Revision U.L.P. No.69/2005 is clearly unsustainable and hence same is quashed and set aside. The judgment of Labour Court is hereby restored. Writ petition is thus allowed by making rule absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.