1 WP 6877.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6877 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for the petitioners. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :14/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner had filed Complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice on account of the stoppage of three ( 3 ) increments. The Industrial Court allowed the Complaint taking into account the admissions given by the Reporter and the witnesses. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Goyanka, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court has misread the evidence. In fact, no clear admission is given by the Reporter about the fact that the complainant/present respondent is not 2 WP 6877.2011 responsible for the accident. In fact, the respondent could have avoided the accident. As he was not totally responsible, minor punishment of stoppage of increment was given. This aspect needs to be considered. The Industrial Court has relied on the acquittal in the criminal case. The proceedings under the departmental enquiry are on a different footing. The same standard of proof as is required in the criminal case, is not to be considered while conducting the departmental enquiry and coming to the conclusion about the guilt of the respondent. This aspect has not been considered by the Court below. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the pleadings and also part of the deposition before the Enquiry Committee submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It has been admitted by the witness that the present respondent is not responsible for the accident. The Industrial Court has scanned and appreciated the evidence and thereafter has come to a definite conclusion. This Court in its Writ jurisdiction would not again re-appreciate the said evidence. As the finding is based on appreciation of evidence and the same is plausible one, the present petition need not be entertained. The Industrial Court in para nos. 9 to 12 of its Judgment has discussed the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and has come to the possible and plausible conclusion. 3 WP 6877.2011 5. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6877.2011 4 WP 6877.2011