1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 6242 OF 2006 (Divisional Controller .v. Ratanlal Maniklal Upadhaya) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 17TH JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati in Revision (ULP) No.303/1998. The Industrial Court, by the impugned order, confirmed the order of labour Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No. 108/1991. The respondent is serving with the petitioner since 1979. On 19th April, 1989, the respondent was on duty as a driver on bus belonging to the petitioner on the route of Amravati to Chandur Railway. At about 11:15 a.m., the bus was reached near Chaprasipura, Amravati and an accident took place, in which a boy aged about four years died on the spot. After making preliminary enquiry, a charge sheet was 2 filed against the respondent on 09.08.1989. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the service of the respondent came to be dismissed by an order dated 28.02.1991. The respondent was also prosecuted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, this prosecution ended in acquittal by an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati on 25.09.1992. The respondent being aggrieved by the dismissal, approached the labour Court and preferred Complaint (ULP) No.108/1991. The labour Court, after hearing both the sides, concluded that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the respondent is legal, proper and according to the principles of natural justice and further held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The labour Court discussed the issue of perversity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in para 7 of the judgment. The labour Court arrived at a finding that bus has not dashed the boy from the front side. It also held that simply because of the high speed it cannot be said that the respondent was rash or negligent in driving the bus at the relevant time. The labour Court arrived at this finding as the petitioner also failed to examine the witness on the proper incident to prove that the respondent was rash and negligent in driving the bus. Keeping with these findings, the labour Court allowed the 3 respondent's complaint and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, preferred revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court concurred with the conclusion drawn by the labour Court and consequently dismissed the petitioner's revision by judgment and order dated 04.09.2006, which judgment in impugned in the present petition. Shri V.G. Wankhede, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the scene of accident, there was 45 ft. brake marks which fact itself shows that the respondent was rash and negligent as he was driving the bus with high excessive speed. He further submitted that it is for the respondent to prove that he was not rash and negligent. In this view of the matter, he requested for interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri C.V. Jagdale, the learned Counsel for the respondent, per contra, supported the impugned judgment and order. In addition to this, he submitted that in pursuant of the order of the labour Court, the respondent is reinstated by the petitioner with effect from 30th June, 2006 and he is discharging his duties from that date. After taking instructions from the respondent, he submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to forgo 50 per cent of back 4 wages as awarded by the learned Courts below. In view of the concurrent conclusion recorded by both the Courts below that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not in accordance with the evidence on record which conclusion is supported by the elaborate reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid writ petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the statement made by the respondent that he is ready and willing to forgo 50 per cent of back wages. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I dispose of the petition by passing following order. “The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent is ready and willing to forgo 50 per cent of back wages as awarded by the learned Courts below, is accepted.” JUDGE