2010 (3) TMI 1258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner is challenging the impugned orders whereby both the Courts below directed the respondent-original complainant to continue in the job inspite of termination notice whereby the petitioner considering the conviction order passed by the Competent Court, terminated the services as per Rule 10(a) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. The relevant portion reads thus: No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the competent Court. In the present case submission is that there are no sufficient reasons made out for termination which in my view is not correct basically in view of the existing rule as reproduced above. The fact about the conviction as mentioned above itself is sufficient reasoning just cannot be overlooked mainly because there is appeal filed and pending by respondent and there is ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t aside. The application as filed by the respondent-original complainant is dismissed. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to observe that the main complaint bearing (ULP) No. 172 of 2009 pending before the learned Labour Court, Kolhapur be heard expeditiously. 5. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a) and (b). No costs.
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X