Ramesh Govindrao Khade vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 61 Bom

                                        1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
                        NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR




                                                                            
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3237/2001




                                                    
PETITIONER:
     Ramesh Govindrao Khade, aged about - Major, occupation : nil, r/o
     Loni, tahsil Arni, district : Yavatmal.




                                                   
                                   VERSUS
RESPONDENT:




                                              
     Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional
                             
     Controller, Yavatmal, tahsil and District : Yavatmal.
=======================================================
                            
Shri Gopal Mishra, advocate for the petitioner
Shri A.S. Mehadia, advocate for the respondent
=======================================================
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 09, 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the

Industrial Court, Yavatmal on 28.6.2001 allowing the revision filed by the

respondent - corporation and setting aside the order of the Labour Court

reinstating the petitioner in service, but without back wages.

2] The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging

therein that the respondent corporation had indulged in unfair labour

practice by terminating his service as a Bus Conductor. On 24.4.1994, when

the petitioner was on duty on Darvha to Kalhi route, the bus was checked by

the checking party at Sakhartanda. It was found by the checking party that 17

passengers were travelling without ticket and cash of Rs.8.00 was found less.

The checking party submitted the report. It was the case of the corporation

that the petitioner had collected the fare from 16 passengers, but had not

issued tickets to them and one passenger had not paid the fare. After holding

the departmental enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service on

19.2.1996.

3] The respondent corporation had resisted the complaint filed by the

petitioner and denied that the enquiry was not fair, legal and proper. It was

also denied that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and the

guilt of the petitioner could not be proved. The corporation sought for the

dismissal of the complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the

trial court, by the judgment dated 22.12.2000 partly allowed the complaint

filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent - corporation to reinstate

the petitioner in service, but without back wages. It was held by the Labour

Court that the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer were not perverse, but

the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to act of

misconduct committed by the petitioner.

4] The Labour Court held that taking into consideration the past service

record of the petitioner along with findings of the Enquiry Officer, it

appeared that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate.

The Labour court held that some punishment was however, needed in the

facts of the case and therefore the Labour Court denied back wages to the

petitioner. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the

respondent corporation in a revision before the Industrial Court. The

Industrial Court also held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer

were not perverse. The Industrial Court observed that the punishment was not

shockingly disproportionate, considering the act of misconduct committed by

the petitioner and therefore the Industrial Court allowed the revision and

dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

5] Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court in revisional powers was extremely

limited and the Industrial Court was not justified in reversing the findings

recorded by the Labour Court on the proportionality of the punishment. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was about to

issue tickets to the passengers after collecting fare from them, but the bus was

checked at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the Labour Court had rightly considered the default card of the

petitioner along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to hold that the

punishment was disproportionate and the Labour Court had therefore, rightly

reinstated the petitioner in service, but without back wages.

6] Shri A.S. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent - corporation

submitted that once both the courts had arrived at a conclusion that there was

no perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it was not proper on the

part of the Labour Court to re-appreciate the findings of the Enquiry Officer,

for the purpose of deciding about the punishment imposed. The learned

counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J.

Page 830 to substantiate his submission. The learned counsel for the

respondent - corporation submitted that the misconduct committed by the

petitioner was a gross one and therefore, the Industrial Court had rightly held

that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate to the act of

misconduct committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the

respondent relied on the decision reported in 2000(9) SCC Page 521, AIR

2008 SC Page 3060 and AIR 2007 SC Page 2731 to substantiate his

submission that even one act of misconduct may invite serious punishment

and it is not open for the Labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence and

reduce the punishment imposed by the corporation. The learned counsel for

the respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

7] I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and

also perused the impugned judgment along with the judgment passed by the

Labour Court on 22.12.2000. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that some

acts of minor misconduct or irregularity were committed by the petitioner

on the previous occasions and he had been fined for that. In a heavily loaded

bus, it was found that the petitioner had not issued tickets to a very few

passengers and also not collected fare from them. By considering the findings

of the Enquiry officer, and the Default Card of the petitioner, the Labour

Court came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner

was disproportionate to the act of alleged misconduct. In fact the Labour

Court after considering the Default Card found that some punishment should

be imposed on the petitioner and therefore it was necessary to deny the back

wages to the petitioner. The Industrial Court reversed the findings on the

disproportionality of the punishment by holding that the previous record of

the petitioner was not so good and the punishment was not disproportionate

to the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, considering the default card of the petitioner, and

the findings recorded by the Labour Court, it appears that the industrial Court

was not justified in reversing the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the

disproportionality of the punishment.

8] There is one more angle to this matter. Though the Industrial Court had

dismissed the complaint and had allowed the revision filed by the respondent,

this court had by an interim order dated 4.3.2002 stayed the effect and

operation of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court. With the result,

the petitioner was immediately reinstated in service and is working as a

Conductor with the respondent corporation for more than 7½ years. I had

called for the Default Card of the petitioner during this 7½ years time to

consider whether the petitioner had a desire to mend his ways or had

indulged in acts of similar misconduct. However, it is found that the

petitioner has not indulged in any act of similar misconduct and is fined on a

couple of occasions for some minor irregularities committed by him. Thus, it

appears form the Default Card that the petitioner has changed his ways. He is

now working with the corporation for more than 7½ years, it would not be,

even otherwise, in the interest of justice to remove him from the post of

Conductor.

9] In the result, and for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 28.6.2001 is

hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

JUDGE

SMP.