WP/6023/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6023 OF 2010 Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd., Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Balu Dadaji Rajbhoj & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner. Mr. N.A. Malunjkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner-Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. contending that the impugned order dated 1st December, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.251 of 2003 holding that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was vitiated, is erroneous. Several contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner namely; (i). that the enquiry was held by affording the respondent No.1- workman every opportunity to attend the enquiry; (ii). that the respondent No.1-workman sought adjournments time and again without attending the enquiry; WP/6023/2010 2 (iii). that the Medical Certificate produced to demonstrate that the respondent No.1-workman was suffering from Malaria was issued by a Doctor whose clinic was several kilometers away from the residence of the respondent No.1-workman; (iv). that the respondent No.1-workman personally produced the Medical Certificate on the 14th August, 1998, although he was suffering from Malaria and sought an adjournment; (v). that the Labour Court has erred in concluding that witnesses were not examined before the Enquiry Officer when in fact the statement, i.e. the report of the Senior Grade Accountant, was produced before the Enquiry Officer and was treated as the evidence of this witness. The respondent No.1-workman was given an opportunity to cross examine this witness but he failed to do so; (vi). that it is unbelievable that the respondent No.1-workman was unwell and could not attend the enquiry, when he reported for duty on 2nd September, 1998. 2. These submissions, in my opinion, do not in any manner indicate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are erroneous. The Labour Court has held WP/6023/2010 3 that in case of a serious charge of misappropriation, it was necessary for the petitioner-Corporation to have examined the witness before the Enquiry Officer rather than merely relying on his statement/report. According to the respondent No.1-workman, there is no material on record to indicate that this statement was in fact received by him. No enquiry proceedings were held after 16th July, 1998. 3. The Labour Court, in my opinion, has not committed any error by concluding that the enquiry was vitiated. A possible view has been taken by the Labour Court which is not perverse. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner- Corporation has every opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charge of misconduct alleged against the respondent No.1-workman. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. Mr. Pethe, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation, seeks extension of a stay granted by this Court on 11th August, 2010. In my opinion, there is no need to grant such an order. Stay refused.