1 W.P.No.1137.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2011 Mr.Pramod Dayanand Gaikwad ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & anr. ... Respondents Mr.M.S.Topkar for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order of the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.33 of 2006. The revision was filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 31.5.2004 in Complaint (ULP) No.87 of 1997, to the extent that the Labour Court granted permission to respondents to award any punishment, other than dismissal, for the misconduct which was proved against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the liberty granted by the Labour 2 W.P.No.1137.11 Court has been misconstrued by the respondents and they have levied a punishment of permanent reduction in the basic wages by three stages. It appears that the revision application was filed only after the orders regarding the reduction in the basic wages was passed. It is in these circumstances, the revision application has been dismissed. 2. In view of the fact that the respondents have already exercised the liberty granted by the Labour Court and imposed a fresh punishment other than that of dismissal, the petitioner would have to challenge that punishment, if so advised. 3. Hence, the writ petition is rejected leaving the petitioner to the remedy of challenging the order dated 18.3.2005 which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. In case the petitioner does challenge this order before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court shall pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any observations made by the Labour Court in its order dated 31.5.2004 in Complaint (ULP) No.87 of 1997 or by the Industrial Court in the order dated 30.9.2010 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 33 of 2006. ..... 3 W.P.No.1137.11 4 W.P.No.1137.11