1 wp5310-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5310 OF 2011 Mr.Baliram Narayan Shirsat .. Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the petitioners CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 19th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original complainant challenges the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in Revision (ULP) No.6 of 2011 dismissing the same. The petitioner preferred interim application under section 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 20.10.2010 restraining the respondents from taking any action for terminating his services. The 2 wp5310-11.doc said application was rejected by the Labour Court on 24.1.2011 and thereafter the petitioner preferred revision, which was also dismissed. Few facts of the matter are as under: 3. The petitioner is in services of the Respondent as a conductor. He misappropriated the respondents’ funds and thereafter they issued show cause notice dated 20.2.2010 for terminating his services. The petitioner filed complaint (ULP) No.49 of 2010 under section 28 Chapter 4 item 1 (a), (b) (d) (f) and (g) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In the said complaint, he preferred application for interim relief restraining the respondents from terminating his services. In the said complaint, to the interim application, the respondent filed written statement dt.30.10.2010. 4. The Labour Court by its order dt.24.1.2011 held that the petitioner failed to make out any prima facie case for interim relief. Further, the petitioner preferred revision and the same was also dismissed by Industrial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by both the courts below are against 3 wp5310-11.doc justice, equity and good conscience and the same are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner will not suffer irreparable loss if interim relief is refused. He further submits that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriate funds of the respondents and these facts are not considered by both the courts below. 6. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application for interim relief restraining the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.2.2010 against terminating the petitioner’s services. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the copy of the show cause notice dated 24.2.2010, the complaint filed by the petitioner, interim application filed by the petitioner under section 30(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, written statement cum say filed by the respondents and the impugned order of both the courts. It is an admitted 4 wp5310-11.doc fact that previously also the petitioner committed misappropriation of funds and for that respondent took action against him. They punished the petitioner twice by stopping his increment etc. but the petitioner did not improve himself and again committed serious type of misconduct. The respondents in their written statement in para 13 stated as under: “13. That, the charge against the complainant are proved in the enquiry by evidence on record. That the past service record of the complainant is not satisfactory. Previously, the complainant was punished two times like stoppage of increment etc. but he did not improve himself and again committed serious type of misconduct for which the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the complaint and interim application filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed.” 8. These facts are considered by both the courts below at the time of rejecting the petitioner’s application for interim relief. It is correct that once the employee is found misappropriating the funds of employer then, it is not possible for the employer to keep him in service. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was found thrice misappropriating the respondent funds. These facts are considered by both the courts in 5 wp5310-11.doc detail. 9. Considering the written statement filed by the respondent and the reasons recorded by both the courts below rejecting the petitioners interim application, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of both the courts below. Hence, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)