1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3088/2006 The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Amravati ..vs.. Namdeo Baliram Gawai -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kasat, Advocate for L.Rs. Of respondent no.1. CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 10 th November, 2008 1. Assailing the judgment and order made by the Industrial Court in revision under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971, Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the view taken by the Industrial Court ordering reinstatement was wholly incorrect particularly because the default card of the respondent-driver show serious misconducts committed by him in the past for which he was punished. He also contended that enquiry having been found fair and proper and the respondent-employee having been retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.06.1993, there was hardly any occasion for ordering reinstatement as was done by the 2 Industrial Court by making the impugned order on 02.09.1994. 2. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent- Driver. argued that the respondent-Driver retired from service on 30.06.1993, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Industrial Court and that is why there is a mistake on the part of the Industrial Court in ordering reinstatement. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that ultimately the employee expired on 08.06.1997 but since he earned wages after working, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order of the Industrial Court. 3. Mr. Wankhende, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that since the impugned order is illegal it would be appropriate to deprive the respondent of the terminal benefits. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the respondent-employee having attained age of 3 superannuation on 30.06.1993, no order of his reinstatement in service could have been passed. Factually, he was not reinstated. The respondent-employee was already deprived of the back wages though by the impugned order made by the revisional Court continuity in service was granted. Since, the respondent-employee was dismissed from service from 04.09.1986 but since as submitted by Mr. Kasat, he was in service from 1964, it would be unjust to deprive the family left by the deceased driver of the terminal benefits due to the respondent-employee at such a late stage. It is not possible to interfere in the above factual situation in extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, I pass the following order: (1) The writ petition is dismissed. (2) The petitioner Corporation to tender all terminal benefits to the legal heirs of the respondent-Driver as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from today. (3) No order as to costs. JUDGE