1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2010 Kashinath Bhikaji Kirtishahi R/o. In front of Saint Tareja Church, Haregaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner. Versus Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Corp. Ahmednagar Division, Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 22nd November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By the above petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule Camp at Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 23/2002, whereby the Complaint filed by the petitioner under section 28 (1) Schedule IV, Item Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondent - 2 Corporation since 1989. The charges against the complainant was that on 11.5.1999, when the petitioner was on duty on a bus from Shrirampur to Rastapur, he misbehaved under the influence of liquor and he was not in a position to stand properly and that he took out his uniform and was in naked condition. The incident was reported by the villagers to the police station so also to the respondent - Corporation. The petitioner was taken in custody by police and was referred to the medical examination, in which the petitioner was found to be under the influence of liquor. The case of the petitioner, however, is that when he was going to Rastapur, he did not give seat to the Sarpanch in the S.T. bus. Therefore, the Sarpanch of the village, with the help of others, took out his clothes and lodged false complaint against him. The petitioner denied that he consumed liquor. After the departmental inquiry and on the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. The complainant preferred first departmental appeal. In the said appeal, the order of dismissal was modified and fresh appointment was given to the complainant vide order dated 12.2.2009. The complainant accepted that order of the first departmental appeal dated 12.2.2009 and voluntarily joined duty. 4. The principal question which falls for consideration in this petition is, whether the petitioner/complainant having once voluntarily joined duty when the order of dismissal was modified and fresh 3 appointment was given to him and when he has accepted that order without any protest, would it be open for him to challenge the order dated 12.2.2009 passed in first departmental appeal. 5. This issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter- alia in the following cases :- (1) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Krishan Niwas reported in 1977-1-CLR 855, (2) Union of India & Anr. Vs. N.M. Dhobi reported in 2006-1-CLR 587, (3) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay Vs. Prakash Tulshiram Pardeshi reported in 2008-II-CLR 452, In aforesaid decisions and other catena of decisions, it has been consistently held that once the employee accepts the order of reappointment and has joined the duty, it is not open for the employee to challenge the said order subsequently. The ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases was clearly applicable to the case in hand inasmuch as the petitioner in the present case had rejoined duty after accepting the order dated 12.2.2009 passed in the departmental appeal without protest. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature in the present case insofar as the legal principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 4 7. Besides, it is also significant to note that in the impugned order the learned Industrial Court has specifically observed as follows : - "Infact the charges proved are so serious that complainant must be thankful to the respondent for modification of dismissal order. Infact misconduct proved against the complainant is serious in nature." It is also recorded in the impugned order that there is previous record of the complainant which is not clean or unblemished. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the Industrial Court, after considering the case of the petitioner on facts and in law has rightly dismissed the complaint. The impugned order is unexceptionable and warrants no interference. Writ petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] Judge ssc/wp10256.10