[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Tansport ... vs Ramesh Rambhau Thakare on 23 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:3630
1-wp9321-2004.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9321 OF 2004
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Cororation ... Petitioner
V/s.
ATUL Ramesh Rambhau Thakare ... Respondents
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.23
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for the petitioner.
19:10:13 +0530
Mr. Sachin Gite for the respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. I have considered the rival submissions and the record
placed before this Court.
2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by
the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court confirmed the findings of
the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 87 of 1994. The Labour
Court held that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour
practice under Items 1B, 1D, 1F and 1G of Schedule IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court directed the
petitioner to cease and desist from such conduct. The Labour Court
also directed that the petitioner was at liberty to impose any
punishment other than discharge or dismissal. The Industrial Court
on appeal did not disturb these findings.
1-wp9321-2004.doc
3. The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court committed
substantial error in affirming the order of the Labour Court. The
petitioner submitted that the Labour Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction. The petitioner also submitted that the findings of
unfair labour practice were not supported by evidence. The
petitioner urged that the respondent had committed acts of
misconduct. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court should
not have interfered with managerial discretion.
4. The respondent opposed the petition. It was submitted that
the respondent has already reached the age of superannuation.
The respondent stated that the management has not imposed the
punishment of dismissal or discharge. The respondent also stated
that the petitioner has cleared provident fund dues and gratuity.
5. Having examined the record, this Court finds that both lower
Courts recorded findings after considering the evidence. Question
is whether any relief survives in the present matter. It is informed
that the respondent has already superannuated. It is also informed
that the petitioner did not impose the punishment of dismissal or
discharge after the Industrial Court judgment. The petitioner has
paid provident fund dues and gratuity. In such circumstances,
there is no live controversy left. The operative part of the
Industrial Court order has already worked itself out. The direction
to refrain from unfair labour practice does not call for further
adjudication now that the employment has come to an end.
6. The submissions of the petitioner that the findings were
erroneous do not survive for independent consideration because
1-wp9321-2004.doc
no prejudice is shown and no actionable consequence remains. The
respondent does not claim any further monetary or service benefit
in these proceedings. The petitioner does not seek to impose any
further punishment. The cause of action does not survive.
Therefore, the Court finds no reason to proceed further or examine
the matter on merits at length.
7. In view of these developments, nothing remains to be
decided in the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of
without any order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
