1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4118 OF 2007 (Champatrao Ganpatrao Ingle .v. Victrans Engineers) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.B. Puranik, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 29TH APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petitioner was working as a Helper with the respondent. His services came to be dismissed on 17.08.1998. He was charged with misconduct under Clauses 24(a), (b), (k), (l) of Model Standing Order. The charges against the petitioner held to be proved in a Departmental Enquiry Proceeding and accordingly the petitioner's services came to be terminated with effect from 17.08.1998. The labour Court, by an order dated 05.12.2002 held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The labour Court, by an order dated 10.02.2003, further held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. The labour Court also held that 2 the petitioner has committed major misconduct covered under Section 24(a), (b), (k) and (l) of Model Standing Order. However, looking into the past service record of the petitioner, the labour Court held that the petitioner is not liable to be dismissed from service. It was further held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and continuity in service and his prayer for back wages was turned down by way of punishment. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision being Revision (ULP) No. 207/2003 before the Industrial Court. The learned Industrial Court partly allowed the petitioner's revision and the petitioner was held to be entitled for back wages to the extent of 25 per cent for the period from 17.03.1998 to 26.03.2003. This order is being impugned in the present petition by the petitioner/workman. The lower Courts below categorically held that the petitioner has committed major misconduct. It was also found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, looking to the past service record of the petitioner, he was refused back wages by way of punishment. In my opinion, the petitioner's case falls in the second category as mentioned in para 19 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics 3 Limited .v. K.P. Agrawal and another (reported in 2007 (2) SCC 433). In view of the above, the petitioner cannot find fault with the impugned order. Both the lower Courts below have dealt with the petitioner's case from correct point of view. No error is made out in the approach adopted by the lower Courts below. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.