Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner/original Complainant Employee is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.07.2018 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur by which, Revision (ULP) No.26/2015 filed by the Respondent/MSRTC has been allowed and the judgment of the Labour Court dated 03.12.2014 in Complaint (ULP) No.28/2012 has been quashed and set aside. Consequentially, the punishment of dismissal proposed against the Petitioner has been sustained, in view of the charge of misappropriation having been proved before the Labour Court.

3. The Petitioner is in employment today on account of the interlocutory orders passed by the Courts, including an ex-parte adinterim order passed on 24.07.2018 by the High Court directing the Corporation, not to terminate the Petitioner.

4. The Petitioner has joined the Respondent Corporation in 1993 as a Bus Conductor. On 01.01.2012, the checking squad of the Respondent Corporation caused a surprise check of the bus traveling from Jalna to Gulbarga. The bus was intercepted at Davatpur Pati, which is about 30 kilometers from Latur and two lady passengers were found to be traveling ticket-less. Their statements were recorded and they revealed that they had paid an amount of Rs.62/- each, to the Petitioner, at Latur and had undertaken the journey upto Umarga. Yet he did not issue tickets to them.

5. The Petitioner was served with a charge sheet and an enquiry was initiated. The Petitioner took the stand that there was a crew change at Latur and he entered the bus as a conductor for the onward journey from Latur to Gulbarga. He stated that the said ladies had boarded the bus at Beed and they took tickets only upto Latur. The Petitioner tried to prevent them for traveling ticket-less from Latur onwards. He contended that the passengers had paid the bus fare right up to Umarga to the earlier bus conductor and he had issued them tickets only upto Latur.

6. The Petitioner was held guilty of the charge of misappropriation of Rs.124/- in the light of the statement of the two lady passengers and the checker. He was issued with the second show cause notice after the Enquiry Officer held him guilty. He rushed to the Labour Court with a ULP complaint u/s 28(1) r/w Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court protected the Petitioner and subsequently, delivered it's part-1 order on the issue of the Domestic Enquiry concluding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. However, it was declared that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse thereby vitiating the Enquiry. The Respondent/Corporation, had reserved its right to conduct a de-novo enquiry. After conducting a denovo enquiry, the Labour Court delivered it's final judgment on 03.12.2014 concluding that no offence is proved against the Petitioner and the show cause notice dated 05.06.2012, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. The Respondent/Corporation challenged the part-1 order as well as the final judgment, by preferring two revision petitions before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has dealt with one revision petition as against the final judgment. In fact, in my view, two revision petitions were not actually required. By the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2018, the Industrial Court allowed the first revision petition filed by the Corporation and set aside the final judgment of the Labour Court dated 03.12.2014. The said second revision petition preferred by the Corporation was disposed of as being infructuous with the conclusion that the Corporation was estopped from challenging the Part I order.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously canvasses the following points :-

(a) The Petitioner was arguing with the two lady passengers, as they were reluctant to pay the fare from Latur to Umarga.

(b) After much persuasion, they paid Rs.12