IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3504 OF 2009 Hariba Tayappa Nimangare ...Petitioner Vs. MSRT Corporation, Ratnagiri .. Respondent --- Shri M.S. Topkar for Petitioner ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the State Corporation and had worked for about 16 years before his services were terminated. 3. Brief facts are that on 24.7.1995, the Petitioner was driving a corporation bus and there was a collusion between the S.T bus and the jeep and in the said accident, the driver of the jeep was died on the spot and other occupant of the jeep was grievously injured. A chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on 5.3.1997, in which it was alleged that the Petitioner had driven his bus in rash and negligent manner. The Petitioner gave his reply to the said chargesheet and the enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer held that the Petitioner was guilty of the alleged misconduct. On the basis of the said finding, a show cause notice was issued and the reply was given by the Petitioner. In the meantime, the Petitioner has filed a complaint in the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after perusing the evidence on record, confirmed the finding of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the complaint by its judgment and order dated 19.10.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred a revision application before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, however, confirmed the finding recorded by the Labour Court and dismissed the revision application. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Topkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by both the Courts below was contrary to the facts of the present case and material on record. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had erred in holding that the misconduct against the Petitioner has been proved. He submitted that the said accident had occurred in the rainy season and the Petitioner had applied brakes to save the jeep, but, since the road was slippery, the Petitioner had lost control over the said bus. He submitted that the conductor had not supported the case of the Respondent. He, therefore, submitted that the orders of both the Courts below were liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the Labour Court had relied on the statements of the witnesses, which were recorded by the police. He submitted that the said statements were not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by relying on the said statements, it was held that the Petitioner had committed misconduct. 6. Submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The Enquiry Officer, after going through the evidence on record, recorded a specific finding that on account of rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner, accident had taken place. The Labour Court had taken into consideration the evidence on record and has given an elaborate reason for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner with such a speed that the impact of the bus practically crushed the entire jeep. 7. The Learned Court has taken into consideration the panchnama which was recorded by the police. 8. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Labour Court was not justified in relying on the statements of the witnesses, which were recorded by the police. Though it is true that the those statements were recorded under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are not admissible in evidence in a criminal trial, but since the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to domestic enquiries, the Labour Court did not commit any error in relying on these statements. 9. Under these circumstances, therefore, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interfering with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Court below. 10. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.