JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2023, passed by the learned Member Industrial Court at Kolhapur in Revision Application (ULP) No. 49 of 2018, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 27th April, 2018, passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur on an application for interim relief (Exhibit-U-2) in Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2016, filed under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act 1971”), came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of superfluities the background facts can be sated in brief as under:

(a) The petitioner-complainant has been working with the respondent as a Conductor since January, 2006 on 3rd July, 2014. The complainant was entrusted with a bus on Miraj- Mandangad route. Inspection squad had a surprise check of the bus at Nava Rasta stage No. 63/S. The inspection squad, inter-alia, found that the complainant had not issued tickets to two passengers travelling from Miraj to Dudhare, despite having accepted fare of Rs.646/-, and two more passengers travelling from Karad to Bharana Naka, despite having accepted Rs.352/-, and thereby committed misappropriation. The squad further noted that cash at hand with the complainant was found short by Rs.935/-. Lastly, after noticing the inspection squad, the complainant allegedly hurriedly took out four tickets for the passengers purportedly tranvelling from Malharpeth to Chiplun, when, in fact, no passenger was found traveling to the said destination.

(b) A charge sheet was served on the complainant on 4th July, 2014. Disciplinary proceedings were held. Post submission of Inquiry report, a notice dated 22nd September, 2016, to show cause as to why the complainant be not dismissed from service came to be issued. Thereupon, the complainant filed Complaint (ULP) No. 59 of 2016 alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule-IV of the Act, 1971. It was alleged, inter-alia, that the proposed punishment of dismissal was prima-facie illegal and by way of victimisation and was also shockingly disproportionate.

(c) In the said complaint, the complainant preferred an application for interim relief (Exhibit U-2), seeking to restrain the respondent-Corporation from imposing any penalty against the complainant till the final decision of the complaint. By an order dated 27th April, 2018, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Ratnagiri rejected the application for interim relief holding that prima facie enquiry appeared to have been conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice and there was no material to draw an inference that the proposed punishment was an act of victimisation. As the complainant was prima facie found guilty of serious misconduct of misappropriation and in the past the complainant was visited with penalties on nine occasions, the learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the complainant was not entitled to any interim relief. However the said order was made effective with effect from 10th May, 2018.

(d) In the meanwhile, the complainant carried the matter in revision, in Revision Application (ULP) No. 49 of 2018. It seems the interim protection continued during the pendency of the Revision Application.

(e) By the impugned order the learned Member Industrial Court concurred with the view of the Labour Court. It was held that there was no material come to a prima facie conclusion that either the enquiry was not fair or proper, or the findings perverse and the proposed punishment shockingly disproportionate. Resultantly, the Revision Application came to be dismissed. The Industrial Court further directed the parties to maintain status quo till 3rd April, 2023.

(f)