WP/210/2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2003
The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. ..Petitioner
Versus
Kisan Shahadu Bodade
R/o at Adilabad, Tq. Jalgaon
District Jalgaon. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri M K Goyanka
Advocate for Respondent : Shri G V Wani
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: November 22, 2017 ...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner / Corporation is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 5.10.1998, delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, by which, Complaint (ULP) No.151 of 1997 filed by the respondent challenging his third dismissal, has been allowed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 22.10.2002, in Revision (ULP) No.684 of 1999, which was dismissed.
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Subsequent events have also been narrated. ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:47 :::
WP/210/2003 2
3. The record reveals that the respondent, who was working as a Conductor, was initially dismissed for the first time on 28.8.1989 for a proved misconduct of misappropriation. In the first appeal, his punishment was reduced and he was continued in employment. Thereafter, he was again dismissed on 30.6.1990 for a proved misconduct of reporting for duties under the influence of liquor. His punishment was reduced in his second appeal and he was reinstated on 6.9.1992.
4. On 7.10.1995, the petitioner was dismissed for the third time, which is a subject matter of this petition for having reported for duties under the influence of liquor.
5. I find from the impugned judgment of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was upheld, findings of the Enquiry Officer were held to be partly perverse, Complaint was partly allowed and the respondent was granted reinstatement with continuity without backwages. All this has been done in a single judgment, which is impermissible in law, considering the first judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. Vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., [AIR 1965 SCC 1803] and then in a catena of judgments in the last sixty years. ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:47 :::
WP/210/2003 3
6. However, it is informed that the impugned judgment of the Labour Court has been implemented by reinstating the respondent in service. This Court refused interim relief while admitting the petition on 3.2.2003. Subsequently, the respondent has again been dismissed for the fourth time for proved mis-conduct of misappropriation on 4.5.2001. This dismissal has not been challenged by the respondent.
7. I am informed that all retiral benefits, except gratuity has been paid to the respondent after his fourth dismissal. As the dismissal dated 4.5.2001 is on account of moral turpitude, he had been deprived of gratuity and therefore, this petition is rendered infructuous.
8. Considering the above, this petition is disposed off as being infructuous. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...
akl/d ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:20:47 :::