1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APEAL NO.55 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5754 OF 2007 [Smt. Zohra Akhtar wd/o Abdul Rashid ..vs.. The Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Bhandara & others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.H. Jamal, Advocate for appellant CORAM : A.H. JOSHI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 04, 2009. 1] Appellants are challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the present appellants. 2] Appellants are legal representatives of deceased Abdul Rashid Abdul Majid who had filed complaint of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court under Item 1 Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 3] The workman lost on crucial point as to whether the enquiry held against him by employer was in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The case therefore, have proceeded on the limited point as to whether unfair labour practice as alleged was proved. Since it was a case of proved misconduct and point as to competence of Divisional Traffic Superintendent to issue the charge sheet against the workman was no more res-intigra, the only issue that was available before the Labour Court was as to whether the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. 2 4] The Labour Court answered the sole question in negative and hence found that employer had not engaged in unfair labour practice and dismissed the complaint. 5] Petitioner filed revision application under section 44 of the said Act, which was partly allowed by converting dismissal into termination. 6] The workman died in the meantime. Legal representatives of the workman approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition. They want the order of termination to be further converted into reinstatement and back wages. 7] Appellants had had argued before the learned Single Judge two points: (1) There was failure to consult the General Secretary of Trade Union which was mandatory; (2) That the enquiry was vitiated due to non observance of principles of natural justice, though Labour Court had held against the workman. 8] We have perused the judgment of the Single Judge and also seen the record annexed to the Letters Patent Appeal. We find from Annexure-3 at page 41 which is the letter dated 19.1.1990 issued by Divisional Traffic Superintendent, Bhandara Division, whereby consultation was sought from General Secretary of the Union of which deceased was an office bearer. 9] It is not the petitioner’s case that letter at Annexure-3 was never dispatched or was never received, thereby rendering the exercise of consultation either futile or meaningless. The workman did not bring any evidence before the Labour Court to prove this point. 3 10] So far as non-observance of principles of natural justice is concerned, the petitioner has failed to give any explanation as to how and in what circumstances he is entitled to claim that he was not given reasonable and fair opportunity. 11] His reliance on the point that after receipt of notice of dismissal he had made request, which appears to our mind to be unusual, which clearly says he would like to first examine the witness and then reply to the show cause notice without saying as to what precluded him denying exercise of proving his case before the Enquiry Officer. 12] We have scrutinized the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, however, we find ourselves unable to arrive at any other conclusion than one reached by the learned Single Judge. We therefore, find no merit in appeal which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE SMP