wp5938-11.odt /1/ Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5938 of 2011 Ramesh Gopinath Tidke and another. Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Buldhana and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.N. Varma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the R-1 & 2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 21 st December, 2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Industrial Court, Akola, on 15.11.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, for grant of interim relief staying the suspension order dated 22-22/09/2011. The petitioner was working as a conductor and the Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Buldhana, suspended the petitioner by an order dated 22- 22/09/2011. It is the case of the petitioners that the competent authority for suspending the petitioner should have been the Divisional Traffic Superintendent and not the Divisional Controller. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the Divisional Controller had no wp5938-11.odt /2/ Order jurisdiction to act as a Competent Authority and suspend the petitioner. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 15.11.2011, however, rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The Industrial Court observed that the Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. had passed the order because the powers of the Divisional Traffic Superintendent were delegated to him as the post of Divisional Traffic Superintendent at Buldhana was lying vacant. Even otherwise, on a consideration of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure, it appears that the appointing authority had jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and the Divisional Controller was the appointing authority of the petitioner in this case. In the facts of the case, the Industrial Court was justified in rejecting the application. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.