( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2004 Bapu s/o Ramdas Kamja PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Manoj Shinde, advocate holding for Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The petitioner was conductor of public transport bus run by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the MSRTC”), Jalgaon Division. On 29-08-1991, a squad carried out check while the S.T. bus was in transit. It was found that he had issued tickets which were of earlier date and meant for some other route. Thus, he collected fare from those passengers by issuing the tickets which were invalid, ( 2 ) about which the passengers had no reason to suspect and that thereby he had duped the MSRTC by committing criminal breach of the trust. An inquiry was held against him. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 14-01-1992. He challenged dismissal order by filing a complaint bearing No. 9/1992. The Labour Court allowed his complaint application and was pleased to set aside the dismissal. The MSRTC challenged the order of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court remanded the case to the Labour Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated in service in compliance with the order of the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court could again conclude the hearing and decide complaint case afresh, as a sequel to the remand order of the Industrial Court, the petitioner retired on 31st July, 1999. Thereafter, the Labour Court decided the complaint case afresh, holding that the disciplinary inquiry was just, fair and proper. It was held that the charges were proved against the petitioner and, therefore, his dismissal was legal and proper. The Labour Court, however, partly allowed the complaint case on the ground that already, the petitioner had ( 3 ) superannuated and, therefore, on humanitarian grounds, he was entitled to pensionary benefits. The MSRTC again challenged the said order by way of revision application No. 69 of 2001. The Industrial Court allowed the revision application and held that the petitioner was not entitled to continuation of services. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct on account of misappropriation of the amount and moreover, there was no power available to the Labour Court to grant continuation of service on humanitarian ground when the dismissal order was found justified. 2. There cannot be duality of opinion that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. Both the Courts below have noticed that the dismissal of the petitioner was legal and proper. It was his luck that he could be reinstated as a result of the direction of the Labour Court prior to the remand order rendered by the Industrial Court. It is explicit that he was found guilty of serious misconduct of collecting fare from ( 4 ) passengers by issuing the tickets which were earlier issued on different route. Once it is found that his dismissal was proper, benefit of continuity of the service could not have been granted to him. The Industrial Court has taken a proper and correct view because so called “humanitarian ground” is legally impermissible to grant such kind of relief by the Labour Court. No interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp5892-04