Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 7.4.1997 passed by the Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No. 57 of 1995 and the judgment and order dated 30.11.2001 passed by the Member, Industrial Court in revision (ULP) No. 34 of 1997. 2. The background facts of the case are as under:- In 1976, the respondent was appointed as junior clerk with the petitioners. As a result of criminal case filed against the respondent he was arrested and put under suspension. Accordingly after trial, the respondent was convicted. He therefore, filed appeal aggrieved by the conviction order. It is the case of the petitioners herein that as per the regulation 10-A of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulation, departmental proceedings are not required to be conducted. Respondent herein took objection to the circular dated 8.4.1993 which shows that if sentence is suspended in appeal no action of termination be taken. The complaint was filed for quashing of show cause notice. The impugned order was passed granting status quo. The petitioners herein filed written statement before the Court below, stating therein that the circular has been misinterpreted and the petitioners herein relied on the provisions of Regulation 10-A of the said Regulations. The services of the respondent herein came to be terminated on 21.7.1995. The Labour Court allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and set aside the show cause notice as well as termination of the respondent by order dated 7.4.1997 and reinstatement of the respondent herein was directed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners herein filed revision before the Industrial Court which came to be dismissed on 30.11.2001. Hence this writ petition is filed by the petitioners employer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of Regulation 10-A of the M.S.E.B. Service Regulation, it is not necessary to hold departmental enquiry and therefore, the respondent was terminated from service without holding any enquiry in view of the provisions of Regulation 10-A of the said Regulation. The said regulation provides that if the employee is convicted then without holding enquiry or disciplinary proceedings such person can be terminated from service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) Madras Vs. The said regulation provides that if the employee is convicted then without holding enquiry or disciplinary proceedings such person can be terminated from service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) Madras Vs. Nagoor Meera, reported din 1995 (2) SLR 379 and submitted that in view of the specific provisions of regulation 10-A of the said regulations, the order of termination was perfectly justified. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and submitted that both the courts have interpreted regulation 90-D and have concurrently came to the conclusion that it was necessary and incumbent upon the concerned authority to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances and gravity of the offence and then only it was permissible for the authority to proceed further and terminate the services of the respondent. According to learned counsel when both the courts on facts and interpretation of regulation 90-D of the said Regulations have held that the action of the petitioners employer to terminate services of the respondent was not in accordance with the provisions of natural justice and in consonance with the provisions of regulation 90-A of the said Regulations, interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the respondent who is working from 1976 cannot be terminated by way of summary proceeding, therefore, learned counsel prayed that the writ petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. The labour Court has framed necessary issues for its consideration and came to the conclusion that the authorities was under obligation to follow the regulation 90-D of the said regulations and further held that since there was no preliminary inquiry as contemplated under the said regulations, termination of the services of the respondent were illegal. The labour Court has framed necessary issues for its consideration and came to the conclusion that the authorities was under obligation to follow the regulation 90-D of the said regulations and further held that since there was no preliminary inquiry as contemplated under the said regulations, termination of the services of the respondent were illegal. In para 26 and 27 and also in subsequent paragraph in para 28, 29 and 30, the Labour Court has discussed about the effect of regulation 90-D of the Regulations and has come to the conclusion that when the termination of services of the respondent is even without preliminary inquiry and therefore, the Labour court has set aside the termination order. 6. The Industrial court on independent application of mind and on interpretation of regulation 90-D as well as regulation 10-A of the M.S.E.B. Regulation in para 9 and 10 has come to the conclusion that there is no compliance of Regulation 90-D of the said regulations by the petitioners employer. 7. On careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and on perusal of the provisions of Regulation 90-D, it was necessary on the part of the authorities at least to have preliminary inquiry about nature of the offence. When the preliminary inquiry is conduced, naturally it was incumbent on the authority to call upon the respondent to explain his position. It is well settled principles of law that even in absence of any provisions or issue of notice if the decision is going to affect on the concerned person, the hearing is contemplated and authorities or the court, as the case may be, are bound to follow the principles of natural justice. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly appreciated by the Industrial Court that the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case. This apart, I find considerable substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent is working from 1976 with unblemished record except some incident arising out of the family dispute and therefore, the respondent ought not to have been removed from the service because of that incident only. 8. Taking over all view of the matter, both the courts below have concurrently held in favour of the respondent. 8. Taking over all view of the matter, both the courts below have concurrently held in favour of the respondent. In the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is not possible for this Court to upset the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and more particularly when the possible and reasonable view has been taken by the courts below. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 9. Civil application, if any stands disposed of in view of the dismissal of writ petition. 10. It is made clear that this judgment and order is passed in the facts and circumstances of this case, leaving open interpretation of regulation 10-A of the M.S.E.B. Regulation.