1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2008 Dnandeo Bhairu Gite ..Petitioner. Vs. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transporting Corporation .. Respondent. .... Mr. A.B. Avhad for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 26th June, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted in a disciplinary proceeding; the allegation being that as a driver employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation he was plying on the route between Alibag and Pune when an accident took place with a scooter during the course of which the rider and a child who was on the pillion died. The Petitioner was dismissed from service after a disciplinary enquiry. In a departmental first appeal the Petitioner was reinstated on humanitarian grounds and it has 2 been stated that in pursuance of an order dated 9th January, 2001 he has been reinstated though as a fresh employee. The second appellate authority dismissed his appeal upon which the Petitioner lodged a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court by its judgment dated 4th September, 2007 noted inter alia that the Petitioner had accepted his order of reappointment and consequently would not be entitled to relief. 2. Having heard Counsel appearing for the Petitioner no case has been made out in the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. First and foremost, it is evident that the Petitioner has accepted the benefit of the order passed by the first appellate authority granting to him a fresh appointment on humanitarian grounds with a view to enable him to improve his performance though a serious charge of misconduct has been established in a disciplinary proceeding. Once the Petitioner took the benefit of the order of reappointment, he would clearly be estopped from challenging the order of denial 3 of continuity of service or backwages. It is a settled principle of law that principles of estoppel apply to adjudication in labour and service disputes as well. Secondly, the order passed by the second appellate authority notes that the service record of the Petitioner was anything but free of blemish. There were nine 'default cases' against the Petitioner and he had been awarded punishments in the past including by way of stoppage of increments, fine, warnings and recoveries involving acts of absenteeism, indiscipline, accidents and damages to vehicle. The exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction is an aid to the advancement of justice and ought not to be exercised in the facts as they stand in the present case. Thirdly, the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent had discriminated against him in relation to the award of lesser punishment to other employees in similar acts of negligence has not been established. As the Industrial Court noted in its impugned order, the Petitioner has neither deposed to the names of such employees nor produced any evidence in support thereof. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. 4 *****