[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mirza Kalim S/O Satar Beg vs Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road ... on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:547
1 26-wp-6185-5942-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5942 OF 2023
Mirza Kalim S/o. Satar Beg
Vs.
Depot Manager, MSRTC, Chandrapur and another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2023
The Depot Manager, MSTRC, Chandrapur and another
Vs.
Mira Kalim Sattar Beg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In WP No. 5942/2023)
Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent.
(In WP No. 6185/2023)
Shri S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 12.01.2026
Heard.
2. Both the Writ Petitions are arising out of the
common judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 passed
by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Revision
Application (ULP) No. 13/2018, thereby the complaint
between employer in Writ Petition No. 6185/2023 and
the employee in Writ Petition No. 5942/2023 was partly
allowed and the order of dismissal dated 21.02.2009 of
RR Jaiswal
2 26-wp-6185-5942-23.odt
the employee was set aside and 50% of backwages were
granted to the employee.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and having gone through the impugned order, it
appears that there were allegations of misappropriation
of Rs.1,27,730/- against the employee, therefore the
charge-sheet came to be issued alongwith one separate
letter by the employer directing the employee to deposit
the alleged amount embezzled as per the charge-sheet.
The employee deposited the amount of Rs.1,27,730/-
with the employer. After conducting the enquiry, the
employee was terminated from the service by way of
punishment of dismissal. It was challenged by the
employee in the Complaint (ULP) No. 12/2014 before
the Labour Court, Chandrapur. The Labour Court in its
order dated 22.01.2018 which is the Part-I of the order
passed in the Complaint (ULP) No. 12/2014 opined that
the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and
directed the employer to prove the charges of
misappropriation before it. The employer did not lead
any evidence before the Labour Court and relied upon
the admission of deposit of Rs.1,27,730/- by the
employee. The Labour Court impressed by the
submission of the employer dismissed the compliant.
4. In revision, the Industrial Court, Chandrapur
set aside the order passed by the Labour Court by
observing that mere deposit of the amount of
RR Jaiswal
3 26-wp-6185-5942-23.odt
Rs.1,27,730/- by the employee does not amount to
admission of the guilty.
5. Considering the fact that a separate letter
was issued by the employer to the employee directing
him to deposit amount of Rs.1,27,730/- which was
alleged to have been misappropriated by the employee, I
do not find any perversity in the order of the Industrial
Court while holding that the guilt of the employee has
not been proved in absence of any evidence led by the
employer before the Labour Court. However, instead of
allowing the complaint, the Industrial Court ought to
have remanded the matter before the Labour Court by
directing the employer to lead evidence to prove
misappropriation and the charges levelled in the charge-
sheet against the employee. Therefore, the order of the
Industrial Court is hereby set aside.
6. Writ Petition No. 5942/2023 filed by the
employee was against the order of the Industrial Court
granting backwages to the extent of 50% only. Since, the
order of the Industrial Court is set aside by this order
therefore, nothing survives in the Writ Petition No.
5942/2023 filed by the employee asking for full
backwages.
7. The matter is remanded back to the Labour
Court for deciding the Complaint afresh wherein the
employer may prove the charges of misconduct against
the employee as alleged by it in the charge-sheet by
RR Jaiswal
4 26-wp-6185-5942-23.odt
leading evidence, if any. If no evidence is led, the Labour
Court may draw any inference permissible in law.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the
Labour Court, Chandrapur on 02.02.2026.
9. Since, the matter is of the year 2014, the
Labour Court, Chandrapur is directed to decide the
complaint afresh within six months from the date of the
order.
10. The petitions are disposed of in the
abovesaid terms.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
RRToJaiswal
Designation: PA Honourable Judge
Date: 14/01/2026 19:36:27
