2502wp4626.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4626 OF 2010 (Divisional Controller, MSRTC Vs. Vilas Narayan Zende) --------------- - ---------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri ChandrakantJagdale, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2011. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Yeotmal on 24/02/2010, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent and declaring that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP ACT, 1971. The Industrial Court has set aside the order of punishment dated 17/11/2005 reducing the basic pay of the respondent-employee by three stages. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment dated 24/02/2010, it appears that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in setting aside the order dated 17/11/2005 and holding that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice under the Act of 1971. The Industrial Court held that it was not clear on the basis of the report as to what was the speed of the Bus when the accident took place. Though, the petitioner had recorded the statement of some of the passengers, none of the passengers 2502wp4626.10.odt 2/2 was examined in the departmental enquiry. The Industrial Court found that the reporter was examined and the report of the reporter was based on presumption. The Industrial Court further found that the petitioner had not considered the past service record of the respondent in terms of the provisions of Clause 6(B) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure before imposing punishment on the respondent. The order of the Industrial Court appears to be just and proper. It is further necessary to note that after the year 2000 when the alleged accident took place, the respondent was not involved in any other accident till this date. The judgment reported in 2008(4) ALL MR 44 – Pune Municipal Transport Vs. Babulal A. Dhotre & another and relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case, there was absence of cogent evidence on record that the respondent had violated Clauses 11, 22 and 39 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure. 3. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl