1 wp 5000.01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2001 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus Kisan Waman Rathod, R/o At Post Kargaon Tanda, No. 3, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. .. Respondent Shri M. K. Goyanka, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Paresh B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . The present respondent had initiated a Complaint ULP No. 102/1994 before the Labour Court challenging his dismissal. The Labour Court allowed the said complaint granted reinstatement in service with continuity, but without backwages. The employer/present petitioner assailed the said order before the 2 wp 5000.01 Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the findings of the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Goyanka, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has held that the charges are proved. The respondent was absent for 37 days, still on the ground that punishment imposed is disproportionate has set aside the said charge of absentisum. In such circumstances the Labour Court could not have allowed the complaint filed by the respondent. Even the principles of natural justice were followed in the enquiry. The respondent was in habit of remaining absent without prior permission or intimation. 3. Shri Paresh Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the orders and states that reasons have been given by the Courts. 4. No doubt, the Courts below have held that the enquiry held against the respondent was fair and complied the principles of natural justice. But merely on the count that the respondent was absent could not have been dismissed from the service. 3 wp 5000.01 Wednesbury principle of unreasonable has been substituted by the doctrine of proportionality. Both the Courts are satisfied that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. Moreover, from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement the respondent has not been awarded with the backwages. That would be a sufficient punishment for the respondent. After the orders are passed the respondent was reinstated with the petitioner and has already attained the age of superannuation. 5. In the light of above, I do not find any error committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11