← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/15028/2019disposed offdismissed for default

The Divisional Traffic Officer Maharashtr State Road Transportation Corporation And Another v. Ajay Prabhakar Hasorikar

2020-01-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rohit B. Deo2 pages

1 W.P. No. 15028/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

1. WRIT PETITION NO. 15028 OF 2019 1.

The Divisional Traffic Officer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Latur, Taluka and dist. Latur 2.

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Latur, Taluka and dist. Latur

...Petitioners

Versus

Ajay S/o Prabhakar Hasorikar, age 45 years occupation service R/o Juna Ausa road, Latur Tal. & Dist. Latur.

...Respondent

Mr. Anand D. Wange, Advocate for petitioners C ORAM : ROHIT B. DEO , J.

DATE : 27th January, 2020 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Latur (for short "MSRTC") is challenging the judgment dated 25th September 2018 rendered by the Industrial Court, Latur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 188 of 2014, whereby the punitive order of imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments, is quashed.

2.

The misconduct alleged against the respondent was that

2 W.P. No. 15028/2019 he refused to type a letter on 8th November 2013. The Industrial Court held the enquiry fair. However, the findings were held perverse and, therefore, the MSRTC attempted to prove the misconduct by adducing evidence before the Industrial Court. 3.

The Industrial Court has, on appreciation of evidence, held that the misconduct is not proved. I do not see any reason to take a different view in writ jurisdiction.

4.

The Industrial Court has noted that other than the complainant, no other employee who was then present, is examined. It is further noted that the report submitted by the complainant was not produced on record. The Industrial Court noted that since the employee was physically disabled inasmuch as he had impaired speech, it was necessary to prove the refusal to type a letter by adducing a cogent evidence on record. I do not find the view taken by the industrial Court is perverse or patently erroneous as would impel me to exercise writ jurisdiction.

5.

The petition is dismissed.

( ROHIT B. DEO ) JUDGE Madkar