1 wp-4864-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO.4864 OF 2009 Mr.U.M.Pawar ..Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, BEST Undertaking ..Respondent .... Mr. Navneet Chahal Adv. with Mr.A.B.Desai and Mr.R.D.Oak Advs. for Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Talsania Senior Counsel i/b Ms.Kavita Anchan Adv.for Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-original complainant and the learned senior counsel for the Respondent-BEST. 2. In this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.6.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai in Application (BIR) No.31 of 1984 and order dated 11.9.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Appeal (IC) No. 148 of 1995 confirming the said order dated 28.6.1995. 3. The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent- 2 wp-4864-09 Undertaking in 1977. He came to be charge-sheeted and after holding enquiry, he came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 8.6.1983. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred Application (BIR) No. 31 of 1984 before the Labour Court, Mumbai. In the said application, he sought reinstatement, full back wages and continuity of service. As stated earlier, the said application came to be dismissed. Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the said order, also came to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the Petitioner had indulged in misconduct. The case of the Respondent-Undertaking is that there were elections of the credit society. On account of loosing in the election, there was violence and in the incident which occurred on 17.12.1982 near Electric House, Colaba, Mumbai, stones were thrown at BEST buses and BEST property was damaged. The Petitioner was amongst the many persons who were arrested in the said incident. Police Officer Mr.S.L.Wadekar, who was witness to the incident of violence and who was present at Electric House at Colaba, Mumbai at the relevant time, stated that he arrested the Petitioner along with some other persons. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the main grievance of the Petitioner is that there is no sufficient evidence to 3 wp-4864-09 prove the misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and as there is no sufficient evidence, the Petitioner could not have been terminated from service. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that many other persons were also dismissed pursuant to the said incident for the same misconduct and evidence was led in these other matters, which has been relied on in the present matter. He has stated that the said evidence has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. S.E. Phadtare and Ors.; 1994 I CLR 301 and after considering the evidence which is the same as in the present matter, the order of dismissal passed by the Undertaking in the departmental proceedings, was upheld. The case of the Petitioner is the same as that of the person dismissed in that matter. Looking to the fact that the evidence is the same, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. 7. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]