Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8469 of 2007 Shri Prakash Govind Jadhav ...Petitioner V/s. Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C., Solapur. ...Respondent Mr.P.P.Killedar for the Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th February , 2008 : 28th February , 2008 : 28th February , 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Killedar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. While on duty as a driver on the semi- luxury bus of the Respondent Corporation on 18-9-1994 the petitioner was alleged to be rash and negligent in his driving and, therefore, the said bus had met with an accident. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 19-10-1994 and a departmental enquiry was conducted into the said charge. The enquiry officer submitted his report and held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The said report was accepted by the Respondent Corporation and the petitioner was issued a 2 show-cause notice dated 28-7-1994 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. As soon as the show-cause notice was received, the petitioner approached the Labour Court at Solapur and filed Complaint(ULP)No. 71/1995. The said complaint was allowed by the Labour Court as per its Judgement and order dated 3-9-2005 and the show-cause notice dated 28-7-1995 was set aside. The Respondent Corporation, therefore, approached the Industrial Court at Solapur by filing Revision Application(ULP)No. 16/2006 and the same has been allowed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court as per his Judgement and order dated 13-9-2007 and hence this petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly conceded that as soon as the Industrial Court pronounced the impugned Judgement and order on 13-9-2007, the petitioner was served with the order of dismissal and as at present he stands dismissed from the services of the Respondent Corporation by way of punishment. If that is so, the Petitioner has to challenge the said dismissal order either by way of departmental appeals or by moving the appropriate Court either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and this petition need not be entertained at this stage. 3 3. Hence, the petition is disposed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order of dismissal as indicated above. The said proceedings to be initiated by the Petitioner, shall have to be decided on their own merits. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]