WP 83/01 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 83/2001
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Amravati through its Divisional Controller,
Amravati. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Madhao s/o Krishnarao Thakare. (DEAD)
1.(a) Smt. Radhabai wd/o Krishnarao Thakre,
Aged about 65 years, R/o Mudliyr Nagar,
Near Shribhate Saw Mill, Amravati.
2. Member, Industrial Court at Amravati,
Distt. Amravati. .. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.C. Mehadia, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the respondent no.1.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J.
th DATE : 8 DECEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 13.09.2000 reinstating the original respondent no.1 in service. It is necessary to note that when the matter came for admission before this Court on 03.07.2001, this Court had stayed the order passed by the Industrial Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service. The respondent no.1 has also died during the pendency of the petition.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:05 :::WP 83/01 2 Judgment
2. The respondent no.1 was working as a conductor with the petitioner Corporation. After holding a Departmental Enquiry, he was dismissed as the charges levelled against him were proved. The respondent no.1 was charged for having carried one passenger without ticket and 2 ½ passengers were travelling with tickets which were reissued. The third charge against the respondent no.1 that 6 ½ passengers were travelling with tickets which were wrongly punched with an intention to reissue the same in the subsequent trip, was also proved against him. The respondent no.1 challenged the order passed by the Corporation before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the enquiry was not vitiated and that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the act of misconduct which was proved against the respondent no.1.
The Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent no.1.
The Industrial Court, however, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held, by the judgment dated 13.09.2000, that two of the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 were not proved and only one charge of resale of used tickets stood established. The Industrial Court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1. The Industrial Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of respondent no.1 in service but, without back wages.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:05 :::WP 83/01 3 Judgment
3. Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the findings recorded by the Labour Court and holding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the acts of established misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on several earlier occasions, the respondent no.1 was warned and punished but, the respondent no.1 did not mend his ways and indulged in similar type of activities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of Rs.4.50 Ps. which was involved in the charge of resale of used tickets was not a meager amount in those days of 1984 and even if it was, considering the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1, the Industrial Court could not have interfered with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the Enquiry Officer.
4. Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that the Industrial Court rightly found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1 and, therefore, the Industrial Court had rightly reinstated the respondent no.1 in service but, without back wages. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:05 :::WP 83/01 4 Judgment
5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Labour as well as the Industrial Court. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Industrial Court committed a serious error in reinstating the respondent no.1 in service by holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the respondent no.1. The Industrial Court had found that the charge of resale of used tickets stood established in the instant case. The Industrial Court was not justified in holding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate as the amount involved in the act was meager i.e. Rs.4.50 Ps. only. It is now well settled that the extent of the amount involved in the case is not relevant but, the nature of the misconduct committed by an employee would be relevant for deciding whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Moreover, the Industrial Court did not apply its mind to the default card of the respondent no.1. At least on four earlier occasions, the respondent no.1 was found to have carried passengers without tickets. He was once dismissed from service on 03.12.1982. In spite of being punished and warned on earlier occasions, the respondent no.1 continued to indulge in the same kind of activities. There were as many as seven defaults committed by the respondent no.1 for which he was punished. The re-issuance of used tickets was a serious charge and since the charge was established, the Industrial Court was not justified in ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:05 ::: WP 83/01 5 Judgment reinstating the respondent no.1 in service in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 13.09.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
ig JUDGE
APTE
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:57:05 :::