1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1516 of 2008 Devanand M. Gambhire ...vs.. Mah. State Road Transport Corpn. Thru its Divl. Controller, MSRTC & another. __________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED : 03/04/2008. 1. Heard Advocate C. V. Jagdale for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the rejection of relief under Section 30 (2) of M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act initially by the Labour Court and later by the Industrial Court, who confirmed the order of Labour Court. 3. This Court has perused the charge sheet and findings of Enquiry Officer. The complaint is filed under items (a), (b), (c), (f) & (g) of Item No.1 of Schedule IV of M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act. The petitioner has been issued show cause notice of dismissal after completion of Departmental Enquiry. 4. What is challenged is the conclusions in the enquiry based on the statements of witnesses. 2 5. Merits of the case can be looked into by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in a complaint arising out of dismissal. At this stage nothing is shown in the notice of show cause of dismissal to be so grossly erroneous to hold the show cause notice itself to be unfair labour practice. 6. Though the legal position allows a complaint to lie against the show cause notice of dismissal, it is not necessary that in every case that a conclusion in favour of workman is imperative. 7. No interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE. Jsa.