issued against him and one of the woman was having criminal antecedents, the learned Labour Court ought not to have passed order of reinstatement. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that order of termination is an order of termination simplicitor and not on proved misconduct after conducting full-fledged departmental inquiry. So far as submission of Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation that out of three women, one woman was having criminal antecedents which can be gathered from the report of Police Commissioner, Rajkot is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the report from Police Commissioner is obtained behind the back of the workman. Apart from that, there are no other allegation against the workman except the allegation that three women were found taking bath in the bathroom of the Swimming Pool unauthorizedly, though they were not members. Even otherwise, considering the criminal cases against the concerned woman from the report of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot dated 07.02.1986, it appears that the cases against the concerned woman were under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act i.e. begging in the public place and all those cases are very old cases ranging from 1973 to 1982. Even on aforesaid ground also, the order of termination could not have been justified and as observed herein above, the order of termination is not on proved misconduct. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has committed any error in passing order of reinstating with continuity of service.
