IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2008 Sudhakar Angar Shetty ..Petitioner vs. 1. Cambata Aviation Ltd.& ors. ...Respondents Ms.Rita Joshi for petitioner Mr.Desai i/b M/s Desai and Desai Associates for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 23rd June 2008 23rd June 2008 23rd June 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. At the interlocutory stage the Labour Court in the complaint filed by the petitioner granted interim relief in his favour in the following terms:- "The application is partly allowed. The respondents are ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- per month to the complainant from 1.10.2004 till the disposal of the main complaint or The respondents are at liberty to allow the complainant to resume duty in other section which is not prohibited or sensitive and if the respondents can accommodate for any other work the respondents may allow the complainant to resume duty and do pay wages according to his work." 2. Aggrieved by this order the matter was carried by the respondents-employer in Revision and Revisional court has by the impugned order reversed it and dismissed the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner. That is how the petitioner-employee is invoking writ jurisdiction. 3. The submission of Ms.Joshi appearing for the petitioner is that there has been no enquiry held into the alleged act of misconduct. In such circumstances, it was open for the Labour Court to have passed the order directing payment of monthly wages or in the alternative to grant reinstatement. There is no reason to go with such an interim order. The Termination Order is admittedly passed without any enquiry and, therefore, the revisional court should not have interfered with the interim order, is her submission. 4. In support of her submission, Ms.Joshi has relied upon two judgments of this Court. One is rendered by V.M.Kanade J. on 3rd May, 2007 ( Writ Petition No.598 of 2007 M/s Gemini Global Engineering Pvt.Ltd.and another Vs. Mr.Govind R.Mhatre and others) and another by D.K.Deshmukh J. in the matter of Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and another Vs. Vilas Digambar Kamble reported in 2002 (3) CLR 308. 5. On the other hand it is contended that the revisional court has rightly interfered and set aside the interim order. It is contended that the termination order is dated 29th May, 2001. The incident is of 25th January, 2001. The complaint (ULP) is filed in 2003 and application for interim relief filed at that time, is allowed on 28th September, 2004. Further, my attention is invited to the termination letter, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A and it is contended that the case is of pilferage and theft. From the cargo section where the consignments are stored, the petitioner workman pilfered one consignment which was found to be in torn condition. He was apprehended and services have been done away with on the ground that the management has lost confidence. It is contended that all this will be gone into in detail and unless and until the case of unfair labour practice is conclusively proved and action of the company in not conducting the enquiry is found to be illegal and vitiated, until then no directions could have been issued for payment of wages. There is no application of mind in so far as this aspect and further, even prima facie it is not indicated by the Labour Court as to why the amount is directed to be paid to the workman, after 3 years. 6. Having perused the order of the Industrial Court and termination letter, prima facie, and tentative conclusion of the Revisional Court cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter is at the preliminary stage. It is only an interim relief application which has been considered. It is not as if the Revisional Court’s order is final and conclusive. However, the Revisional Court is right in perusing the termination order and concluding from a reading thereof that the first respondent is carrying on its activities at Juhu Air Port where the consignments of the customer are stored. The area is sensitive and in such an area if there is allegation of theft or pilferage, then, without the same being probed further it is not proper to direct payment of monthly sums or reinstatement, more so, when balance of convenience and irreparable loss are also not demonstrated, prima facie, by the employee. 7. The Judgments of this Court relied upon by Ms.Joshi are rendered in the peculiar facts. In the case of Gemini Global Engineering Pvt.Ltd. (supra) there was nothing on record to indicate that prior to the date of incident dated 16th November, 2004 there was any misconduct. There was no prima facie case made out for dismissal of the employees. In the present case, it is not as if there is nothing on record. The termination letter is clear. The petitioner prima facie does not dispute that he was on duty on the relevant date. However, he has a different version. In my view, when the charges are as serious as of theft and pilferage, such interim orders as are prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. Everything turns upon the facts of each case and, therefore, the decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court are distinguishable. 8. As a result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is summarily dismissed. No costs. However, the Labour Court to endeavour and dispose of the complaint expeditiously and preferably by 31st May, 2009. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open and the Labour Court to proceed without being influenced by any observations rendered at the interlocutory stage. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)