1 wp 5035.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5035 OF 2011 Divisional Controleer, M.S.R.T.C, Latur .. Petitioner Versus Digambar Balaji Kamble .. Respondent Shri B. B. Yenge, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent had filed complaint ULP before the Labour Court challenging the show cause notice of dismissal issued to him. The Labour Court allowed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby the present petitioner preferred revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby, present petition is filed. 2 wp 5035.11 2. Shri Yenge, the learned counsel strenuously contends that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the statement of the person from whom the certificate was found by the ticket checker. The evidence of ticket checker is sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent. This aspect has not been properly considered by the Courts. Every opportunity was given to the respondent to cross examine the witness. It was erroneous on the part of the Courts below to conclude that no proper opportunity was given to the respondent to cross examine the witness. 3. On perusal of the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, it is manifest that the enquiry officer had only relied on the statement of ticket checker who said that the passenger who was traveling on the said certificate meant for disabled person had told that the same was issued by the present respondent. Apart from the said statement, there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the respondent is not authorized to issue such a certificate, nor the certificate bears the signature of the respondent. The said person from whom the said certificate is recovered is also not examined before the enquiry officer. The Courts below have 3 wp 5035.11 considered all these aspects and have arrived at plausible conclusion. Even the respondent is now retired. In view of the above no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11