1 35.wp.4307.2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4307 OF 2022 Satish S/o Bhimrao Wankhede .Vs. Division Controller, MSRTC, Amravati and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. R.D. Narkhede, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28/04/2026 1. Judgment and order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No.10 of 2014 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the present petitioner by his employer/ respondent herein. In that inquiry, the punishment of withholding three future increments was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the punishment by filing a complaint before the learned Industrial Court. 3. The learned Industrial Court framed preliminary issue with respect to fairness of inquiry and perversity of findings. It was held that the inquiry conducted was fair and proper, however, the findings recorded were perverse. The learned Industrial Court accordingly granted permission to the respondent/employer to lead evidence in order to prove the charges/misconduct. 2026:BHC-NAG:6670 2 35.wp.4307.2022.odt The respondent has admittedly not lead any evidence before the learned Industrial Court to prove the charges. However, while deciding complaint finally, the leaned Industrial Court has held that the respondent could not prove that the charges were perverse and as such, the complaint was dismissed. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that once the preliminary issue with respect to perversity of the findings, based on evidence recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, is recorded in favour of the employee, it was incumbent upon the employer to lead independent evidence before the learned Industrial Court so as to establish the charges. He contends that in absence of such evidence, the initial findings recorded with respect to perversity of the findings could not be reversed. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent/employer however justifies the judgment and contends that the petitioner/employee along with conductor, was responsible for the incident and was solely aware about the circumstances in which the accident occurred, on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the learned Industrial Court has decided preliminary issue and has held that the findings recorded in the enquiry report are perverse and granted leave to the employer to lead evidence in order to prove the charges, the finding with 3 35.wp.4307.2022.odt respect to perversity by the Inquiry Officer could not have been reversed. 7. In the absence of any evidence being led before the Industrial Court, it was not open to hold that the charges were proved. It was for the respondent/employer to prove the charges and not by the complainant/employee to prove his innocence, since the preliminary issue with respect to findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings was recorded in favour of the petitioner/employer. The learned Industrial Court has clearly erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that complainant failed to prove that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer based upon which punishment was imposed on him are perverse. 8. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed by quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint (ULP) No.10 of 2014 and by allowing the said complaint by setting aside the punishment imposed vide order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the respondent No.1. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) C.L. Dhakate