1 23-wp-2503-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2503 OF 2011 Shri Narsing R. Shinde .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Sachin Chandan, for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S. Hegde i/b. M/s. G.S.Hegde & Associates, for Respondent Nos.2 &3. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 18th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 By this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Original Applicant challenges the order dated 1st March, 2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No.37 of 2009, which arose out of the order dated 6th May, 2009 of the 3rd Labour Court, Thane, dismissing the Petitioner's application for interim relief in Complaint (ULP) No.65 of 2008. 2 23-wp-2503-2011.sxw 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Respondent-authority failed to explain any charges against him. He further states that the Respondent-authority has not brought on record any evidence to show that previously also, the Petitioner was engaged in the same offences of mis-conduct. Therefore, the order passed by both the Courts below i.e. Labour Court as well as Industrial Court is liable to set aside. 4 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-authority vehemently opposed the present Petition. He submits that several cases of misappropriation were registered against Petitioner earlier and he was penalized for more than 12 times. Therefore retaining such kind of dishonest person means a foisting of such persons upon the MSRTC for no cause. He further submits that they placed on record default card to shows the misappropriation committed by the Petitioner. Therefore considering the facts, it is not necessary to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. 5 It is admitted fact that the Respondent-authority placed on record default card. The default card as well as the Written Statement of Respondent shows that previously also, the Petitioner committed misappropriation of funds and committed mis-conduct. It is clear from 3 23-wp-2503-2011.sxw Written Statement as well as the impugned order passed by both the Courts below that the Respondent-authority placed on record material to show how many time the Petitioner engaged in the mis-conduct including re-issue of tickets, allowing passengers to travel without ticket etc., If such type of serious charges are against the Petitioner, and same are considered by both the Courts below, I do not find any substance in the present Petition to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 6 Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.K.TATED, J.)