1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2002 The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Dhule Division Dhule Dist. Dhule. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Shivdas Shrawan Khkairnar r/o Usha Niwas, Devidas colony Gat no. 14, Subhash nagar, Dhule Tq. & Dist. Dhule .. RESPONDENT Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.L. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Petitioner / employer is challenging the order passed by the industrial court by presenting the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 2 Respondent /employee was inducted in employment as a conductor in the year 1989. An enquiry was held against the employee in pursuance to presentation of charge sheet dt. 29-4-1992. Charge levelled against the employee was in respect of mis-appropriation of amount of Rs.2.85/-. It was found that the employee was on duty on the relevant date when bus was checked by the officials of the corporation and it was found that the respondent /employee was in possession of excess cash amounting to Rs. 2.85/-. In respect of the allegations levelled against the employee, charge sheet was served upon him and after holding due enquiry, punishment in respect of withholding of three increments with permanent effect was issued against him. Employee preferred appeal before the appellate authority provided under the department rules and after considering the appeal, the punishment imposed against the employee was reduced to reduction of basic pay by two stages with permanent effect. Order issued during the departmental proceedings was subject matter of challenge in the complaint presented by the employee. The employee led evidence before the industrial court, however, the employer preferred not to lead any defence evidence and presented pursis to that effect at exh. C/4. After considering the rival contentions, learned Member of the industrial court found that the enquiry has not been conducted in proper manner by the 3 department and imposition of punishment amounts to unfair labour practice. Learned Member of the Industrial court allowed the complaint and set aside the order in respect of imposition of punishment by order dt. 21-12-2001. 3 I have perused the impugned order passed by the industrial court. I have also heard arguments advanced by respective counsel for the parties. While admitting the petition in the year 2003, operation of the impugned order issued by the industrial court was not stayed. It is also evident that the employee concerned has retired on attaining the age of super annuation long back. Apart from this aspect, order passed by the learned Member of the industrial court cannot be said to be erroneous. it is noted by the industrial court that the employer was not paid subsistence allowance during the continuation of enquiry. Copy of the enquiry report and findings reached by the enquiry officer wee not served on the employee so as to extend opportunity of answering the finding, before recording the order in respect of imposition of punishment. It is also found by the enquiry officer that the witnesses who were required to be examined in order to substantiate charge against the employee were not examined by the employer. The employee has examined the witnesses before the 4 industrial court and they have supported the case put up by the employee. Employer preferred even not to cross examine the witness nor the employer has led any defence evidence before the industrial court. In these circumstances, the learned Member of the industrial court found favour with the case put up by the employee and quashed and set aside the order in respect of imposition of punishment. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance. Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2873.02.odt