1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1351 OF 2001 Vinod S/o Laxminarayan Amrute Age 42 years, Occu. Unemployed R/o House No. K-2/7, Navjeevan Colony, N-11, HUDCO, New Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport corporation, Aurangabad Division Auragngabad. ....Respondent. Shri. N.P Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 18th June 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The only question raised and involved in the instant Writ Petition is regarding disproportionate punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner / employee by the respondent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, the employer. The issue is governed by the provisions of clause (g) of Item 1 of Scheduled IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Here-in-after referred as 2 “said Act”) 2. The Petitioner/employee was dismissed from service on 27/06/1985, for the alleged misconduct, which was held to be proved in the inquiry conducted against him. The employee preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 1985 before the Labour Court, at Aurangabad, challenging his dismissal from services. The Labour Court decided the Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 1985 holding that the dismissal of the complainant amounted to an unfair labour practice, under Item No. 1 of Schedule IV. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner / employee was of minor nature and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. Hence, an order of reinstatement was passed with continuity in service, without back-wages, on 17/06/1985. 3. The respondent / employer, being aggrieved by the above said decision of the Labour Court, preferred Revision (ULP) No. 65 of 1995, before the Industrial Court, at Aurangabad. It was decided on 11/02/2001. The revision was allowed by set aside the judgment and order dated 17/06/1995 passed by the Labour Court and dismissing the complaint filed by employee. The revisional Court has held held that the inquiry was proper and as per the procedure adopted. It was held that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has failed to apply his mind to the findings recorded in the inquiry report and the same are not discussed. 3 The finding recorded by the Labour Court that ticket less passengers were the pass holders, was reversed and the finding of the Labour Court was found to be contrary to the record and based upon imagination. The revisional court further found that the inquiry held was proper and there was no question of interfering with the order of punishment, under Section 11- A of the Industrial Dispute Act, by the Labour Court. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. It is true that the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the mis- conduct alleged against the petitioner /employee is of a minor nature. However, there is no reference to the inquiry report and the findings recorded therein. The revisional Court found that the sole reason given by the Labour Court that ticket less passengers were the pass holders was wrong and without any basis. The Labour Court failed to discuss the charges and the findings recorded in the inquiry report. The Industrial Court was therefore, right to the extent of holding that there was total failure on the part of the Labour court to apply his mind to the charges levelled and finding recorded, before recording the finding that it was a minor mis-conduct. Although, the Industrial Court discussed the findings recorded in the inquiry report, it has failed to record a finding on the material aspect, as to whether the mis-conduct proved against the employee was the major or minor. Without recording such finding, by the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the order of 4 Labour Court, holding that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the mis-conduct . This is an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity, resulting in failure of justice. 5. In view of the above, the order passed in revision by the Industrial Court on 11/01/2001 cannot be sustained. The matter is governed by clause (g), Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Neither the said item nor the precedents relied upon, have been discussed. In the absence of application of mind to the crucial aspects by the revisional Court, I am left with no option to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court on 11/01/2009, and to remand the matter back to the Industrial Court for decision afresh. 6. In the result, the instant writ petition partly succeeds, judgment and order dated 11/01/2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in revision (ULP) No. 65 of 1995, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is sent back to the Industrial Court for decision afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The revision being of 1995 and the petitioner being out of employment since 16/01/2001, the Industrial Court is directed to decide the revision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ. Rule made absolute, with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] SDM*1351.09WP(J)