1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4211 of 2009 ( Nimbaji Shankar Kolhe and another ..vs.. Division Controller, MSRTC, Buldhana and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr. P.N. Varma, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondents Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 5 th October, 2009 1. This petition by a Conductor of a bus belonging to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is directed against refusal of interim relief by the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola upon revision, whereby the petitioner’s claim for stay of his dismissal after an inquiry was turned down. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though petitioner No.1 was found to have not issued tickets to some passengers this was on account of the fact that he could not reach passengers because of heavy rush. This would have to be considered 2 by the Labour Court while finally hearing the complaint and does not help petitioner in making out a prima-facie case. 3. The learned Counsel next submits that since petitioner No.1 is an employee drawing the salary of more than Rs.350/- per month, the authority, which imposed punishment, was not entitled to inflict the punishment. He relied on Schedules- C and D for inflicting the punishment, without pointing out the date on which the salary figure of Rs. 350/- was inserted in the Schedules, as also the subsequent revision of pay scale of the Conductors. These aspects have been considered by the Courts below while rejecting petitioner’s application. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Corporation should have take appropriate steps to amend the rules. The rule has to be read as on the date when it was framed and merely because it was not amended, it would not follow that the subsequent factual changes could be ignored. Therefore, the contention that the order was passed by an authority, which was not competent to pass the order, may prima-facie not stand. It would obviously be considered by the learned Judge of the Labour Court as well as the learned Member of the Industrial Court when the complaint would be heard on merits and, therefore, denial of interim relief on this 3 ground cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment Hindustan Lever Ltd. ..vs.. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others reported in 1994 Supreme Court Labour Judgment 145. This is not a case of complaint being branded as premature. Such are not the facts in the present case. Both the Courts below have considered on merits whether petitioner was entitled to interim relief. Complaint or the application are not rejected as premature. 5. This is a case of Conductor, who had not issued tickets, & was found guilty upon an enquiry. There is no question of granting interim relief to such an employee who had prima facie breached the trust of his employer. The impugned orders do not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to approach the appropriate forum and therefore, seeks direction to maintain status quo. Prayer is refused. Judge. adgokar