JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the complaint which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court. 2. The original complainant was engaged as a Mechanic with the State Transport Department, Buldana. During the course of service, charge-sheet came to be issued to him stating therein that the original complainant was negligent in performing his duties especially in respect of repairing the brakes of the buses owned by the Corporation. On the report given by the Depot Manager, enquiry was held. The said Depot Manager recorded the statement of the Head Mechanic and thereafter held that the original complainant was guilty of the charges framed against him. On the completion of the enquiry, the services of the original complainant came to be dismissed on 30-4-1991. He therefore filed complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 challenging the same. The Labour Court framed an issue as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse or not and held that the same were not so perverse. After considering the past service, it was further held that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate. This order has been confirmed by the Revisional Court. 3. Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the original complainant submitted that in the enquiry proceedings neither was the Head Mechanic nor the Driver was examined. Similarly, the log-sheet maintained by the Corporation was also not produced. Considering the long service rendered by the original complainant, the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. He referred to the decision in Hardwari Lal vs. State of U. P. and others, 2000(84) FLR 3 and submitted that the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside. 4. Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned adjudication. According to him, both the Courts considered the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charges were duly proved. There was no scope to interfere in writ jurisdiction and in that regard he referred to the decision in Manik S. Mali vs. Union of India and another, 2009(2) CLR 709. 5. According to him, both the Courts considered the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charges were duly proved. There was no scope to interfere in writ jurisdiction and in that regard he referred to the decision in Manik S. Mali vs. Union of India and another, 2009(2) CLR 709. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the records of the case, it is seen that the Labour Court has recorded a specific finding that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry fairly and that the findings recorded by him were not perverse. It was for the Department to examine relevant witnesses for proving the charge. After considering the past record of the original complainant, relief was refused to him. In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that during his service of about twenty two years, he was issued charge-sheet on 45 occasions and one warning was also issued. The Industrial Court in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment has noted fifteen earlier defaults of similar nature. In the light of these observations and material on record, I do not find that there is any case made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. For that reason and in the facts of the present case, the ratio of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. 6. In view of aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.