1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 557 OF 1998 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller, Thane Division, Thane .... Petitioner vs 1 Shri B. N. Raut, Shivneri Chawl, Lokmanya Nagar, Post Vartak Naar, Thane - 606 2 Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Thane .... Respondents Mr. G.S. Hegde for the petitioner. Mr.Milind Deshmukh for respondent no.1. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 29th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane, whereby the order dated 10.04.1987 was set aside and directed to give all monetary benefits to the complainant. 2 The submission that some punishment is required to be given to the employee and, therefore, based upon the material available on record and as there was misconduct as per their Rules, the punishment so imposed, just cannot be stated to be harsh or disproportionate. 2 3 The argument was also based upon the past incidents to sustain the order/action dated 10.04.1987. However, considering the reasoning given by the learned Member, Industrial Court, whereby the aspect of this disproportionate punishment on the complainant, in the facts and circumstances, has been given importance. Though an argument was raised referring to the past conduct, was not substantiated at the relevant time. 4 The Second Appellate Authority modified the earlier order dated 10.01.1986 passed by the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority granted minor punishment which was modified by the Second Appellate Authority. 5 This Court, while admitting the petition permitted the complainant to be in service and accordingly he was in service throughout this period also. This Court has directed to deposit 50% back wages and all other benefits and permitted the complainant to withdraw the same, by furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Industrial Court. Therefore, in view of above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order so passed. However, the amount so already deposited of back wages as directed by order dated 23.02.1999, if withdrawn by the complainant need not be recovered and if not withdrawn, he is permitted to withdraw the same. 6 The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 7 Rule is accordingly discharged. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)