1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5754/2007 (Smt.Zohra Akhtar wd/o Abdul Rashi VERSUS The Div. Controller, MSRTC, Bhandara & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri A.H. Jamal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhandara on 20.02.2006 as also the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara on 02.02.2007 in Revision U.L.P. No.6/2007. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondents. While in service, he was charged for submitting false bills in respect of items which were not supplied by him. The husband of the petitioner had undertaken to provide Tea and Snacks to the employees, who attended the Worker's Education Classes and though he had not supplied the snacks to the employees, he had submitted the false bills and withdrawn the amount claimed 2 thereunder. After holding an Departmental Enquiry, husband of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the charges against him were proved. The husband of the petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal dated 25.01.1990 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, Bhandara, by an order dated 03.01.2006, decided the preliminary issue and held that the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted by the respondents was fair, proper and according to the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, by an order dated 20.02.2006, the Labour Court, Bhandara held that the husband of the petitioner failed to prove that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer against the husband of the petitioner, were perverse. The Labour Court further held that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the husband of the petitioner was also not shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the husband of the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondents had indulged in unfair labour practices as pleaded by the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner filed a revision against the judgment passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, Bhandara partly allowed the revision. The order of 3 dismissal dated 25.01.1990 was converted into an order of termination and the respondents were directed to pay all the legal dues to the legal heirs of the conductor. All the three orders are challenged in the instant petition. Shri Jamal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the husband of the petitioner to examine his witnesses and since the husband of the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to examine the witnesses and show cause to the evidence supporting the charge at the stage of imposition of the punishment, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of Clause 30 of the Settlement of the year 1981 and 1985 before dismissing and terminating an employee, it was necessary to take the State Level General Secretary of the Sanghatana into confidence. Shri V.G. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Court are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the General Secretary of the Sanghatana was 4 asked to attend the Divisional Office for consultation on 24.01.1990, and hence, there is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that clause 30 of the Settlement of the year 1981 and 1985 was violated. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was not mandatory to grant an opportunity to tender evidence of witnesses under Rule 27 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, of the respondent Corporation. The counsel for the respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the three orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Court. It is necessary to note that the husband of the petitioner had challenged the issuance of the charge-sheet in the Labour Court when the respondents had issued the same on the petitioner. The Labour Court had dismissed the case filed by the husband of the petitioner and the order of the Labour Court was upheld by this Court. When the husband of the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard and participate in the Disciplinary Enquiry, the husband of the petitioner failed to participate in the same. The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the Enquiry 5 Officer had intimated the husband of the petitioner regarding the dates of the enquiry but, the husband of the petitioner did not remain present in the Enquiry Proceedings and also did not participate in the same. After the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.01.1990 for the proposed action of termination of his service, the husband of the petitioner sought an opportunity to examine the witnesses. This request of the husband of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the authority as the husband of the petitioner was not entitled to insist on the examination of the witnesses when he had failed to participate in the Enquiry by giving various flimsy reasons. In this background, there was no question of introducing additional witnesses in the case under Rule 27 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules,of the respondent Corporation. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected as the husband of the petitioner was the leader of the Union and in spite of he being so, the respondents had issued a communication to the General Secretary of the Sanghatana to attend the Divisional Office, Bhandara for consultation, prior to the termination of the services of the husband 6 of the petitioner, on 24.01.1990. In this background, it cannot be said that Clause 30 of the Settlement of the year 1981 and 1985 was violated. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE