vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6074 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6074 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6074 OF 2008 Sunil S. Lokhande ... Petitioner V/s. Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Piyush shah for Petitioner Mr.G.S. Hegde for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The orders challenged in this petition are passed by the Labour Court on 28.9.2007 and by the Industrial Court on 29.7.2008. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet for certain acts of misconduct. An enquiry has been held against him and the enquiry report has been furnished alongwith a show-cause notice. The petitioner had not filed his reply to the show-cause notice. Instead, he filed a complaint contending that he should not be terminated from service as the respondent Corporation had committed an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court has held that there was no prima facie case made out by the petitioner and has, therefore, denied any interim relief to the petitioner. However, the Labour Court passed an order directing the : 2 : parties to maintain status quo till the petitioner approaches the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court in the order passed on the revision application has dismissed the same and permitted the respondent workman to continue till 29.8.2008. 2. This petition has been filed against both the aforesaid orders. In my opinion, the orders cannot be faulted. There is no need for this Court to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below. However, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice while passing the appropriate orders. In the event the respondent Corporation decides to terminate the services of the workman, the order will not be implemented for a period of two weeks after passing the order. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid direction will not create any equity in the petitioner’s favour if the order of dismissal is challenged by him.