1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9452 OF 2010 1. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division at Aurangabad. 2. Divisional Traffic Superintendent, (D.T.S. Default), (Competent Authority), Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, S.T. Division Office, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Smt. Rekha Shripatrao Samindre, Age major, Occu. S.T. Conductor, Batch No.48089, R/o At Post Palod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. Ranjana Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner employer is raising exception to the order passed by Member, Industrial Court, Jalna on 24.6.2010, whereby the Revision (ULP) No.28/2010, presented by the respondent employee, came to be allowed and the order passed 2 by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.113/2009 below Exh.U-2 came to be quashed and set aside. It was directed to the employer, petitioner herein, not to give effect to the notice dated 22/24.8.2009, issued by the employer in respect of proposed order of punishment of termination from service of the employee. The respondent employee is serving as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. It is contended that, on the ground of misconduct, departmental proceedings were initiated against the employee. A charge sheet came to be issued on 18.5.2009 and the respondent employee presented reply on 3.6.2009. After completion of enquiry, a notice in respect of proposed punishment was issued to the employee on 24.8.2009. The said notice itself is a subject matter of challenge in Complaint (ULP) No.113/2009 presented to the Labour Court at the instance of employee. In the pending complaint, the employee presented application seeking stay to the implementation and operation of the notice issued by the employer on 24.8.2009. The Labour Court refused to grant interim relief in favour of the employee. As such, he was constrained to file revision application bearing Revision (ULP) No. 28/2010. The revisional Court, while allowing the revision petition, was pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court below Exh.U-2 and directed stay of the implementation of the notice dated 22/24.8.2009. The Industrial Court also issued directions for expeditious disposal of the pending complaint. 3 3. I have perused the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The petition can be disposed of by issuing certain directions in the matter in accordance with the judgments delivered in Writ Petition No.4586/2009 in identical circumstances. Placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of (Bajirao Subhana Kanjale Vs. M/s Vidyut Metallics P. Ltd. and another), decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.9.2008 in Writ Petition No.6198/2008, and in the matter of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Star Oxides and Chemicals Ltd. & ors. Reported in 2001 III L.L.J. (Supp.) 54 and in the matter of Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank ltd. & anr. Vs. Vilas Digambar Kamble, reported in 2002 III C.L.R. 308, it is contended that the instant petition can also be disposed of by issuing identical orders. Issuance of the directions as proposed would safeguard the interest of the respondent employee also. In this view of the matter, following directions are issued : (i) The respondent- employee shall tender his reply to the show-cause-notice issued by the Enquiry Officer within a period of five weeks from today. (ii) The management shall, after receiving the reply, considering all the relevant circumstances and the reply of the respondent, pass appropriate orders, and the said order passed by the employer shall be communicated to the employee/respondent herein. (iii) The management shall give effect to the order or put it for implementation only after four weeks from date of service 4 of order on respondent/employee. (iv) In the event, the respondent – employee choses to challenge the order that may be passed by the management, the Labour Court may consider the application, if any, that may be presented for grant of interim relief by the respondent-employee, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 4. In view of the directions set out hereinabove, the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No.28/2010, dated 24.6.2010 is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M. BORDE JUDGE Authenticated copy ( F.M. Pathan ) Private Secretary