1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4950/2009 (Suresh M. Dangre and another ..vs.. MSRTC, Akola and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 Heard. The instance for which the petitioner was charge sheeted is dated 21/12/1993 and charge sheet is dated 03/3/1994. After completion of enquiry, the second show cause notice was issued proposing punishment of dismissal and that was challenged by filing ULP Complaint No. 383/1995. In that complaint, learned Labour Court, Akola protected services of petitioner by passing interim order. The said interim order was confirmed on 09/5/2002. The employer then approached the Industrial Court in Revision ULP No. 95/2002 and on 02/11/2009, learned Industrial Court, Akola has allowed that revision. Learned Advocate Shri P.N.Varma contends that learned Industrial Court has not turned down any finding reached by the learned Labour Court in its interlocutory order and as such it could not have 2 interfered in revisional jurisdiction with it. He further argues it that revision against Industrial Court order was not maintainable. Learned Advocate Shri Wankhede for respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the impugned order. He states that on spot, the misconduct was accepted by the petitioner and his past service record also far from satisfactory. He has relied upon the report of Enquiry Officer to substantiate his stand. Advocate Shri Varma contends that challenging the alleged past service record and alleged spot admission, the ULP complaint is filed, which is still to be decided, the issue needed to be considered prima facie. The learned Industrial Court has considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and in view of the facts before it, interference at interlocutory stage was not warranted. The Enquiry Report mentions that on earlier 7 occasions for similar misconduct having financial implications, some punishments were imposed upon the petitioner. The spot statement of petitioner also shows that on spot, he has accepted the facts as noticed by the Checking Squad. Whether such statement was obtained by force or pressure and whether checking squad has acted with bias are the matters which pertain to domain of recording of evidence. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, proceedings in ULP Complaint No. 383/1995 are expedited. Learned Labour Court, Akola 3 is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30th April, 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale