1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1314/2009 (Linu Punjabrao Warkari VERSUS Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Arni Road, Yavatmal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.C.R. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Yavatmal on 25.09.2008 answering the reference in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a driver with the respondent-Corporation since the year 1989. The respondent initiated an enquiry against the petitioner for unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty for a period of 179 days from April-2004 to February-2005 without prior permission or application. 2 The charges against the petitioner were proved and, therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The Labour Court found that the enquiry conducted by the respondent against the petitioner was fair and proper and according to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court also found that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not illegal or perverse. The Court then recorded that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was also not shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity in service and full back wages. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned award dated 25.09.2008. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not afforded 3 an opportunity to tender evidence on the other issues, which were involved in the matter before the Labour Court though the petitioner had wanted to challenge the legality and the propriety of the Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as the petitioner had filed a pursis before the Labour Court that he was not desirous of adducing any oral evidence. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not desire to adduce oral evidence only in respect of issue no.1 and he wanted to adduce evidence on all the other issues is liable to be rejected as the Labour Court had not prevented the petitioner from tendering the evidence on the other issues and the pursis showed that he was not desirous of tendering any evidence. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved 4 against the petitioner is also liable to be rejected as the facts on record clearly show that the petitioner was absent for a period of 179 days from April-2004 to February-2005. The Court also observed that it was proved on record that the absence of the petitioner was also without submission of any leave application and medical certificate and the absence caused a great loss to the Corporation. The submission of medical certificate in the month of January-2005 would not be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner had remained continuously absent since the month of April-2004 without applying for leave. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are pure findings of facts, which cannot be interfered with, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE