1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3417 OF 2009. BHAUSINGH S/O. UMALA RATHOD, UMARKHED, DISTT. YAVATMAL. .. PETITIONER/S. // VERSUS // 1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, YAVATMAL. 2. THE DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. YAVATMAL. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.B.Khan h/f. Shri B.M.Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : AUGUST 13, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the revisional order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, whereby he vacated the interim relief granted by the learned Judge, Labour Court under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade 2 Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act” for short) staying further action in terms of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner after conclusion of an enquiry. The petitioner, conductor of State Road Transport Corporation bus, had been charged for carrying passengers without ticket. An enquiry was held and when show cause notice was issued, he approached the Labour Court. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that the petitioner has made out prima-facie case and therefore, granted interim relief under Section 30 of the Act, restraining the employer from implementing punishment that may be awarded to the complainant till disposal of the complaint. 3. Upon revision, the learned Member, Industrial Court by impugned order set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the order did not disclose that the learned Judge, Labour Court had prima-facie come to the conclusion that there was unfair labour practice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly placed on record the entire material and also fairly took me through the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Enquiry 3 Officer. One of the witnesses, one Ashok Rathod, was cross- examined by the petitioner himself and had stated that he had paid fare to the petitioner and was obviously found without ticket, since he did not claim that he had received it. Whether, other passengers, who were alleged to have been carried without ticket, took a different line or not cannot be determinative of the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, prima-facie, it is difficult to conclude that the respondents had indulged in unfair labour practice, since there is at least one passenger, who claimed to have paid fare and was not issued ticket. Order passed by the learned Industrial Court does not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.