Bombay High Court
Maha.State Road Transport ... vs Madnao Krishnarao ... on 8 December, 2009
Bench: V.A. Naik
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.
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.
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.
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
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
