WP/8181/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8181 OF 2010 Padmakar Madhavrao Sirsath Age : 56 Sex : Male Dhule ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule 2. The Depot Manager M.S.R.T.C. Shirpur Depot Tq. Shirpur Dist Dhule .. Respondents ... Shri G.G.Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner and Shri D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. Dated : 21.12.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard Shri G.G.Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri D.S.Bagul, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule, whereby his Complaint (ULP) No.23/2008 came to be dismissed. In paragraph Nos.18 to 20 of the impugned order, the Industrial Court has observed as follows :- WP/8181/2010 2 "18. So far as Departmental Enquiry is concerned, Complainant had given several admissions in cross examination and these admissions are enough to come to the conclusion that, entire Departmental Enquiry and finding therein are perfectly legal and proper. During cross examination Complainant deposed that, charge sheet of Departmental Enquiry was given. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet. There was hearing of Departmental Enquiry. Shri Madhavrao Bachpai, Union Leader had represented him in the Departmental Enquiry and cross examined the witnesses in Departmental Enquiry on his behalf. So also adduced evidence for himself. He received all the documents of Departmental Enquiry. He also produced documents in Departmental Enquiry. Divisional Controller was Enquiry Officer named; Deewakar Deore who had given decision of the Departmental Enquiry. Then final show cause notice was given to him. He sent reply to the final show cause notice. Thereafter punishment of dismissal was imposed in Departmental Enquiry. 19. Complainant further admitted in cross examination in clear terms that, at the time of hearing opportunity of being heard was given to him. In m opinion, this specific, accurate and clear admission of the Complainant is enough to come to the conclusion that, sufficient opportunity of being heard was given to the Complainant in Departmental Enquiry and Principles of Natural Justice were duly followed. Considering the record, in my opinion, Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Respondent is legal and valid and finding in WP/8181/2010 3 Departmental Enquiry is also legal and proper. There is no illegality or perversity. Therefore, I hold that, no Unfair Labour Practice is committed by the Respondent. 20. It is noteworthy that, though there is pleading of the Complainant in complaint that, he submitted application for leave along with medical certificate to the Respondent, however, it is rather surprising to note that, on entire record the Complainant did not produce a single document. Complainant did not produced copy of his leave application, copy of medical certificate, order passed by the Respondent on his leave application etc. True it is that, these alleged documents may be in custody of the Respondent and it may be say of the Complainant, however, for that purpose specific procedure is laid down. Complainant should have atleast given notice to produce documents to the Respondent calling upon the Respondent to produce his particular dated application for leave, particular dated medical certificate, particular along with order of Respondent if any. It is rather surprising that even the order of dismissal, copy of First Appeal and decision in First Appeal, these documents are also not produced by the Complainant on record." 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner having failed to prove his complaint, no fault can be found in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out. The Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. WP/8181/2010 4 4. Though the petition has been dismissed on merits, so far as the finding of the Industrial Court on the aspect that the complainant having joined the duties and thereby accepted the order of the first appeal without protest and that he is estopped from filing the complaint, in my view, is incorrect inasmuch as before joining duties on 24.7.2004 the complainant had already filed the Second Appeal on 4.6.2004. Thus to that extent, the finding of the Industrial Court would be incorrect. However, since the matter has been dismissed on merits, this observation is only academic. (A.A.SAYED, J.) ... akl