vs s IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3925 OF 1997 PETITION NO.3925 OF 1997 PETITION NO.3925 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioner V/s. Hussainkhan Hafij Pathan & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.G.S. Hegde for Petitioner Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: August 12, 2008 August 12, 2008 August 12, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The order challenged in this petition has been passed by the Industrial Court on 5.2.1997. The Industrial Court has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent workman under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and held that the punishment imposed on the workman of stoppage of three increments was illegal. 2. The respondent workman was employed as a driver with the petitioner. On 9.9.1992, the respondent No.1 committed an accident due to which a child was knocked down and was fatally wounded. A chargesheet was issued under Items 10, 11, 22 and 39 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure applicable to the petitioner’s undertaking on 31.7.1993. After an enquiry was held and : 2 : Respondent No.1 was found guilty of the act of misconduct, the punishment of reduction of the basic pay by three stages for three years was imposed on 7.1.1994. The prosecution of Respondent No.1 before the criminal Court ended in an acquittal on 16.1.1995. The respondent workman being aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed on him, challenged the same by filing a complaint (ULP) No.13 of 1994. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 5.2.1997 has allowed the complaint and held that the punishment imposed was illegal. It appears that the respondent No.1 has accepted that enquiry conducted against him was in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Purshis to that effect has been filed at Exhibit 14 contending that the procedure adopted at the enquiry was fair and proper. 3. A bare perusal of the order of the Industrial Court demonstrates that the Industrial court has merely reproduced the citations relied on by the advocate for the complainant. He has reproduced certain paragraphs of a judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeded to hold that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate. There is absolutely no consideration of the evidence on record nor has the Industrial Court bothered to record the submissions advanced on behalf of either party. The conclusion that the Industrial Court : 3 : has drawn is based on absolutely no reasoning whatsoever. In such circumstances, there is no alternative but to remand the matter for being decided afresh before the Industrial Court. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The complaint (ULP) No.13 of 1994 is remanded to the Industrial Court, Pune for being decided afresh. Parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence if so required before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court shall take into consideration the evidence already on record and any other material on record, besides any additional evidence which the parties may lead while deciding the complaint. The Industrial Court shall endeavour to complete the hearing of the complaint within six months from today. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Writ to be sent to the Industrial Court, Pune immediately.