1 wp 5597.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5597 OF 2011 Superintending Engineer, M. S. E. Dist. Co. Ltd. and another .. Petitioners Versus Rajendra Muralidhar Dixit .. Respondent Shri S. M. Godsay, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Hiraji Gaikwad, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent had filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 46/2009 challenging the show cause notice issued by the present petitioners pursuant to the conviction sustained by the present respondent under the Anti Corruption Act. Along with the complaint, the present respondent also filed an application Exhibit – U – 2 for stay to the said show cause notice. The Labour Court rejected the said application. The respondent preferred revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the said revision vide its order dated 11.09.2009. 2 wp 5597.11 Aggrieved thereby petitioners have filed the present petition. 2. Shri Godsay, the learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contends that the Industrial Court has misdirected itself. The present respondent was convicted by the competent Sessions Court U/Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against the said judgment the respondent had filed an appeal. In appeal the Court had only stayed the sentence and the conviction was not suspended. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the petitioners have rightly invoked regulation 10-A of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (Employees Service) Regulations 2005, which gives the power to terminate the service of an employee if convicted by a criminal Court. According to the learned counsel the Industrial Court should have dismissed the revision in view of Regulation 10-A of the Regulations of 2005 referred supra. 3. Per contra Shri Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that if an action is to be taken under Regulation 10, then the employer is required to follow the procedure under Regulations 90. According to the learned counsel, the complaint is pending before the Labour Court. The order is passed in the year 2009 by the Industrial Court and 3 wp 5597.11 same is assailed in the year 2011. The Labour Court can be directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously. 4. It is a fact that the order is passed by the Industrial Court in September 2009 and the present writ petition assailing the said order is filed on 20 th July, 2011 i. e. almost after two years. The complaint is still pending. There is an inordinate delay in challenging the said order. 5. In view of the fact that the complaint is still pending and the order impugned is passed in the month of September 2009, I am not inclined to consider the petition on merits instead I relegate the parties before the Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court shall decide the Complaint (ULP) No. 46/2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from today. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that I have not considered any of the points on merits and all points are kept open. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11