(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 411 OF 2011 Eknath s/o. Damu Patil, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Indira Lalwani Nagar, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Through its Chairman/Secretary, Jamner, Dist. : Jalgaon. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. Monish Nilwant, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. One of the contentions is, the principles of natural justice were violated and mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was not followed as dismissal is without any opportunity to the petitioner. Further contention is, provisions of Rule 100, Sub-Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee Regulation Act, have been violated. 3. The Labour Court and Industrial Court have concurrently found petitioner guilty of serious lapses. His past service record is also found to be not satisfactory. Initially, the dismissal was without departmental inquiry and Labour Court permitted to lead evidence. Accordingly, necessary witnesses were examined and petitioner was permitted to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the Labour Court found that the misconduct was duly established. It, therefore, upheld punishment of dismissal. The Industrial Court, in revision, has maintained the order of the Labour Court. 4. In view of these facts, it is apparent that the (3) contention of denial of opportunity is misconceived. 5. Rule 100(6) of the Rules supra prohibit suspension beyond one month without previous permission of the Director. Here, admittedly, suspension was only for 5 days and thereafter dismissal order was served upon the petitioner. Rule has not been violated. In any case, misconduct is established before the Labour Court. 6. No case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp411