1 wp2378.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2378 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent. 1. The punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent by petitioner is found vitiated by Labour Court as also by Industrial Court. The Courts have found that one C.L. Thube found guilty for similar misconduct was allowed to join the duties and hence there was discrimination in the matter of punishment. 2. This finding was assailed by the present petitioner in this Petition. Advocate Mr. Bedre for petitioner contends that Shri. Thube gave undertaking and the recognised union has also entered into agreement in respect of Shri. Thube with the petitioner management. Therefore the punishment of dismissal was not inflicted upon him and he was permitted to join the duties. 2 wp2378.10 3. He states that other four employees had filed ULP complaints challenging their dismissal and in it pointed out punishment imposed upon Shri. Thube but then Courts have found that example of Shri. Thube was not applicable in their matter. He further states that those employees have filed Writ Petitions before this Court and the said Writ Petitions have been admitted by this Court. Accordingly, learned Counsel states that the question of equal treatment raised by the other employees is pending before this Court in Writ Petitions and the present Writ Petition having similar fact needs to be admitted and interim relief needs to be granted. 4. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, he also pointed out that offer of one time settlement was given by petitioner to respondent. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was offered to him. He states that the petitioner is even today ready and willing to pay that amount. Today, the unit is in losses, has discontinued its own production and is arranging for work from other units. According to him, in this situation the impugned orders passed by the Lower Courts need to be quashed and set aside. 5. Advocate Mr. Barde for respondent points out that offer for compromise was turned down long back. There is no difference between the case of Mr. Thube and the present respondent, both are found involved in the same 3 wp2378.10 misconduct. According to him, the unit is not in losses, still functioning and work is being provided even to Mr. Thube. He further states that admission of Writ Petition filed by employees before this Court can not be the reason to admit the Petition filed by the employer also. 6. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the petitioners have taken lenient view in the matter of Mr. Thube and only reason given is undertaking given by him and support of recognized Union. The respondent has also given that undertaking and that too prior to Mr. Thube. It appears that the respondent does not have backing of recognized union. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings backing of recognized union may not be very relevant. The petitioner can always take appropriate action against any person when he is found indulging in any mis-conduct. 7. Explanation given by the petitioner to take lenient view in the matter of Mr. Thube is unacceptable. Learned Courts below have rightly found that the present respondent deserves similar treatment. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence the Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 18.02.2011 gas/wp2378.10