1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4674/2009 (Shankar N. Waghmare ..vs... M.S.R.T.C.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Heard Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no charge under Schedule A, Clause 42 in relation to intoxication or being under influence of alcohol. Enquiry was only for indiscipline; for loss to M.S.R.T.C. and for irregular attendance i.e. under Clause 10, 11, and 35. Hence, the labour Court while deciding the reference could not have looked into the said material. Learned counsel for respondent argues that the fact that he was moving in depot under influence is very much reflected in charge sheet as issued on 22.5.2001 and this was admitted by him in his statement recorded prior to issuance of charge sheet. The material available on record has been considered by Reference Court while deciding the issue. Advocate Jagdale, for the petitioner, in reply has attempted to show that the alleged admission has been 2 obtained by misleading the petitioner and by giving him some promise of taking lenient view. In support, he invited the attention to pleadings in paragraphs 4 of the plaint filed before the Reference Court. It is apparent that the pleadings in paragraph 4 are dated 19.5.2003 i.e. after departmental enquiry and it is mentioned therein that during enquiry false sympathy was shown to him and the Enquiry Officer procured statement as he liked and obtained petitioner’s signature on it. The charge sheet is dated 22.5.2001 and it mentions that in statement recorded prior to charge-sheet, he has accepted that between 16.03.2001 to 18.03.2001 he was moving in depot under influence of alcohol. The learned Labour Court has considered this part to hold that employee was not entitled to any leniency . The attention of this Court is invited to judgment reported in 2008 (III) CLR 328 (Depot Manager, A.P. vs. V. Surender). There, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed that the charge was only of absentism. Here, the learned Labour Court has noticed that charge was of absentism, but also found the conduct which, according to it, disentitled the petitioner to any leniency. In these circumstances, the consideration of controversy by labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or without jurisdiction. No case is made out warranting any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit.