1 WP No.10354/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10354/2010 Depot Incharge, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, At post and Tq. Umerga, Dist.Osmanabad. - PETITIONER VERSUS Nagnath Bhujangrao Kamble Age: 41 Yrs., occu. Service (Assistant Karagir), R/o At post Andur,Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.B.B.Yenge, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.A.A.Mukhedkar, Adv. h/for Mr. LC Patil,Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard both the learned Counsel finally. 2) Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, (for 2 WP No.10354/2010 short, MSRTC) questions order dated 9th February, 2010 passed by learned Member of Industrial Court, Latur, declaring that the petitioner MSRTC has committed unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.Act, 1971 and directed the petitioner to desist the same. The learned Member has by the said order, terminated the show cause notice dated 26th May, 2009 issued against the respondent. 3) The Respondent is working with the Corporation as Assistant since 1965 and thereafter as Assistant Karagir. 4) The Respondent is served with notice dated 26.5.2009 and in the inquiry it was proposed to inflict punishment of reversion from the post of Assistant Karagir to the post of Assistant. According to the respondent, the said notice demonstrates unfair labour practice and contrary to the record. 5) Learned Member of the Industrial Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order discussed the documents and informed that there is no evidence of any witnesses or that proper procedure was not followed during the course of inquiry and the respondent was not given reasonable opportunity of filing statement of defense at the proper time. The record illustrate, evidence of the respondent was recorded. He even subjected the officers to cross- examine. Learned Member has referred such admissions 3 WP No.10354/2010 in the cross-examination. It is pertinent to note, the inquiry officer has only proposed punishment of reversion by the said notice. He has not ordained permission to revert the respondent. It is the appropriate authority, the appointing authority to do so. Before the ink of show-cause notice dated 26.5.2009 could be dried or could be taken effect after giving hearing to the respondent, the Respondent rushed to the learned Member of the Tribunal and got the above referred order dated 9.2.2010. The law is well-settled. Any interference on the question of punishment is impermissible. In a very rare case, where punishment is disproportionate to establish charge that it was unconscionable and actuated with malice, court may interfere. 6) The Respondent, as could be seen, was served with the show cause notice upon the proposed punishment. It was not that punishment of reversion was decided to be acted upon. After hearing the respondent any decision was to be taken by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the order and the observation of learned Member of the Industrial Court, Latur, are premature. It would not amount that the MSRTC, as an employer, has indulged in unfair labour practice under the Items referred in the order. 7) The writ petition allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is set aside. The respondent is at liberty to deal with and controvert the contentions set out in 4 WP No.10354/2010 the show cause notice dated 26.5.2009 before the appropriate authority. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/