1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4412/2008 (Haridas Jairamji Sawarkar vs. M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Ltd., Nagpur.) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri R.D.Khade, for the petitioner and Advocate Shri J.L.Bhoot, for respondent. Advocate Khade contends that the Industrial Court while exercising limited jurisdiction under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act has extended its power by reappreciating the entire evidence and also by loosing sight of the fact that past service of the petitioner was not considered either by the employer or by the Labour Court. He contends that the misconduct was not conclusively established and in any case, the plea of loss of confidence on that account was unsustainable. Advocate Shri Bhoot for respondent on the other hand contends that the petitioner was working as Seeds Processing Employee and theft of processed seeds by him has been established in the departmental enquiry. He contends that the Labour Court has found that departmental enquiry was fair & proper and the 2 conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer was not perverse. He points out that the Labour Court, however, found the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate and granted the relief of reinstatement. The Industrial Court has corrected that error and has dismissed the ULP complaint. It is apparent that the past service record of the petitioner become relevant under Schedule IV, Item 1(g) of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act if he is punished for misconduct of a minor or technical character. Here the misconduct of theft of processed seeds, which was established and accepted by both the Court, is not misconduct of minor or technical character. The Judgment of Apex Court in case of Colour Chem vs. A.L.Alaspurkar [1998 (1) CLR 638) concludes the controversy in favour of respondent and against the petitioner. The stand of present respondent/employer that it has lost the confidence in petitioner cannot be held to be either erroneous or perverse. No case is made out by the petitioner for interfering in writ jurisdiction with the order passed by the Courts below. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit