Manohar Dadaji Bankar vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3064 Bom

                                                           1                                  903-wp-1935-23.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 1935/2023

                           Manohar Dadaji Bankar
                                    Vs.
          Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. A.S. Bhendarkar, Advocate for petitioner


                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 28th MARCH, 2023

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 17/10/2022, passed by the learned Industrial Court, whereby the application for condonation of delay of 6 years 9 months 14 days has been rejected. The application before the learned Industrial Court, challenges the judgment dated 15/03/2012, passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the proposed punishment of termination as per the show cause notice dated 09/01/2012, (which according to the petitioner is an incorrect date, the correct date being 11/6/2010,) has been reduced to stoppage of two increments. The contention is, that the learned Labour Court by the judgment 15/03/2012 did not

2 903-wp-1935-23.odt

order stoppage of the two increments permanently. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Labour Court would indicate that the stoppage of increment is not for any particular period of time, which would indicate that the stoppage was permanent. The petitioner was throughout aware of this position which is reflected from communication dated 24/5/2014 to his employer (page 25) as well the appeal made by him to the appellate authority on 19/5/2014 (page 27-A). Inspite of which the judgment dated 15/3/2012, was not challenged before the learned Industrial Court. The learned Industrial Court in the impugned order has noted the conduct of the petitioner, in the matter of he being throughout aware of the nature of the punishment imposed and what was being interpreted in that regard by the employer as is reflected from communication dated 25/4/2014 (page 25), I therefore do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande