Vaishnavi 7-WP-9704-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9704 OF 2026 The Managing Director Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Ltd ...Petitioner V/s. Manohar Udaybhan Sirsat ...Respondent ________________ Ms. Madhavi M. Tavanandi, for Petitioner. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 06 AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges judgment and order dated 17 January 2026 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune, partly allowing Revision Application (ULP) No. 27 of 2021 =led by the Respondent. The Industrial Court has set aside the judgment and order dated 17 December 2019 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 192 of 2011. The Industrial Court has directed reinstatement of the Respondent with continuity but without back wages. 2) I have heard Ms. Tavanandi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by her. I have gone through the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court and have also perused records of the case =led alongwith the Petition. Page No. 1 of 2 06 August 2026 Vaishnavi 7-WP-9704-2026 3) It appears that in the Complaint, Labour Court framed preliminary issues relating to fairness of inquiry and perversity in the =ndings of Inquiry Of=cer. Issue No. 1 relating to the fairness of the inquiry was answered in favour of the Petitioner-Employer and the inquiry was held to be fair, proper and with due adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has however, answered preliminary issue No. 2 relating to perversity against the Petitioner. It has held that =ndings of the Inquiry Of=cer are perverse. 4) Once =ndings of the Inquiry Of=cer held to be perverse, the burden shifted on the Petitioner to justify its action by leading evidence before the Labour Court. Admittedly, the Petitioner tendered a purshis stating that he did not desire to lead any evidence. Ignoring this position, the Labour Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the Complaint =led by the Respondent. 5) The Revisional Court has corrected the error committed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court has merely directed reinstatement and continuity without any back wages. The order of the Industrial Court does not put any =nancial burden on the Petitioner. No interference is warranted in the order passed by the Industrial Court. 6) The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 2 of 2 06 August 2026