WP 11316/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11316 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Bagul for the petitioner and Advocate Shri. Shinde for the respondent. 2. Prima facie perusal of order of termination itself reveals that it casts a stigma upon the respondent. Labour Court has looked into that order and grievance of respondent that she was being victimized by making false allegations. Prima facie case was noticed and hence, there is a direction to reinstate or then in the alternative to pay 75% salary from the date of order till decision of the complaint. Employee/petitioner approached Industrial Court in revision and Industrial Court has reiterated same position. 3. Perusal of appointment order or then the Government policy regulating the terms and conditions thereof to which attention has been invited by Advocate Bagul does not show WP 11316/10 2 that such stigma can be cast without holding departmental inquiry. 4. Hence, at this stage I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 5. Without prejudice to the rights of employer to proceed further, Shri. Bagul has urged this Court to give employer liberty to take such other appropriate steps against respondent as are open in the law. Shri. Shinde is opposing this request as according to him, grant of such liberty by this Court will unnecessarily influence the further consideration of challenge by respondent before any forum. 6. In this situation, I do not find that any liberty as prayed for need to be given by this Court. 7. Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp11316.10