1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Yenge for Petitioner and Advocate Mr. Kadam for Respondent. 2. Mr. Yenge has produced before this Court past service record of petitioner. 3. The Labour Court rejected prayer for interim relief made by present Respondent on 4th September, 2009. It found that impugned show cause notice for imposing punishment was in relation to an accident in which 6 passengers had died and 10 more were injured. It is specifically noted that the tyres of the bus and other vehicle viz. jeep were burst after impact of accident and not before accident. The Court has also noted that in criminal prosecution J.M.F.C. found Respondent guilty of rashness and negligence and that order was confirmed in appeal by Sessions Court. Revision against the same is pending before this Court. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. The refusal to grant stay to show cause notice was then questioned by Respondent by filing Revision under section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unior and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court. Industrial Court noted that the note prepared after the accident mentioned bursting of front tyre of the bus and, therefore, found some substance in the contention of present respondent. It, therefore, found that a prima facie case requiring scrutiny into correctness of findings of inquiry officer was made out. It has, therefore, stayed that show cause notice. 5. According to Advocate Mr. Yenge in Revision jurisdiction such interference is unsustainable and looking to past record the Industrial Court ought to have permitted petitioner/ employer to take appropriate further decision. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 6. Advocate Shri Kadam contends that the accident is old and for that accident charge sheet was filed in 2009 and thereafter the show cause notice has been issued in May, 2009. He states that in this situation, use of discretion by Industrial Court is just and proper. 7. The perusal of past service record produced before this Court shows that there were earlier two accidents in his tenure. In 2000 he was absent without permission and in 2002 he has driven M.S.R.T.C. bus unauthorisedly on Khadi-Kolwand road from CBD fly over bridge. 8. The circumstances in which interim relief can be given in U.L.P. complaints filed apprehending unfair labour practice are well settled. Reference can be made to judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Hindustan Lever Ltd. V/s Ashok Vishnu Kate" reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 285. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 9. Here, the rashness and negligence is already established in criminal trial and the employer has given a show cause notice. It is open to Respondent to file reply to it and thereafter employer can look into all aspects and take appropriate decision. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction was made out. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order/ judgment of Industrial Court dated 1st February, 2010 in Revision (ULP) No.110 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. 10. Respondent employee is given time of three weeks to file his reply, if any, to said show cause notice, if not filed already. After receipt of reply, the petitioner to take further decision in accordance with law. 11. The proceedings in Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2009, if the same survive, are expedited and Labour Court at Latur shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8006 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. any case within one year from the date of communication of this order to it. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:30/03/2011. ans/8006