Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Bhaskar Duklya Patil on 26 August, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
wp-4882-05(908)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4882 OF 2005
Maharashtra State Road Transport )
Corporation having its office )
at Vahatuk Bhavan Dr. A. Nair Marg, )
Bellasis Road, Bombay Central, )
Bombay 400 008 ) ..Petitioner
Vs.
Bhaskar Duklya Patil )
At Vashwl Post Dighodi )
Tak. Uran Dist Raigad ) ..Respondent
Mr. G. S. Hegde i/b M/s. G. S. Hegde & Associates for the Petitioner
Mrs. Seema Chopda for the Respondent
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 21-8-2004 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane
by which order the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner came to be
dismissed and resultantly the order dated 9-2-2001 passed by the Learned
Judge of the 4th Labour Court, Thane, allowing the Complaint ULP No.69 of
1995, came to be confirmed.
2 The facts giving rise to the above Petition can in brief be stated
thus:
mmj 1 of 6
wp-4882-05(908)
The Petitioner herein is a Road Transport Corporation established
under the Road Transport Corporation Act. The Petitioner plies its buses on
various routes in the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent herein was
working as a conductor. On 21-11-1991 the bus wherein the Respondent was
the conductor, was checked at Jambhul Pada and it was found that there was a
discrepancy in respect of the payment of fare in respect of 7 ½ passengers. The
Respondent was therefore issued a charge sheet under clause 7a, 7c, 7d, 10,
11, 12b and 22 of Schedule A of the Discipline and Appeals Procedure of the
Petitioner Corporation. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was that
the Respondent had committed a misconduct relating to the collection of fare
whilst he was on duty on 21-11-1991. In the inquiry the charges were held to
be proved against the Respondent and the punishment of dismissal was
proposed against the Respondent. This resulted in the Respondent filing
Complaint ULP No.69 of 1995 alleging unfair labour practice against the
Petitioner. The Petitioner filed its Written Statement and pointed out the
seriousness of the charges which were held to be proved against the
Respondent. It seems that in the complaint the parties filed pursis at Exhibit 10
informing the court that they do not want to lead any evidence on the
preliminary issue as well as on merits of the case. The Labour Court therefore
decided to proceed with the complaint on the basis of the pleadings and the
inquiry proceedings.
mmj 2 of 6
wp-4882-05(908)
3 In so far as the preliminary issue is concerned, the Labour Court
held that the inquiry was fair and proper. In so far as the findings of the
enquiry officer are concerned, the Labour Court held that on the basis of the
material on record the charges can be said to be proved in the inquiry.
However, in so far as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, the
Labour Court was of the view that the punishment was disproportionate to
the charges proved against the Respondent and accordingly held that the
Petitioner has engaged in unfair labour practice by issuing the said show cause
notice dated 28-2-1995 and it was directed to cease and desist from the said
unfair labour practice. The Labour Court also set aside the show cause notice
dated 28-2-1995 and directed the Petitioner to continue the Respondent who
was the complainant in their employment. The exparte ad-interim order dated
3-3-1995 was also confirmed.
4 The Petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 9-2-2001 filed
Revision ULP No.10 of 2002 under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971.
The Industrial Court did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the findings
of the Labour Court as regards the proportionality of the proposed punishment
in view of the fact that the past record of the Respondent was taken into
consideration by the Petitioner without giving any opportunity to the
Respondent in that behalf. The Industrial Court accordingly by the impugned
mmj 3 of 6
wp-4882-05(908)
judgment and order dated 21-8-2004 has dismissed the said Revision
Application.
5 It appears that during the pendency of the above Petition, the
Respondent has superannuated in October 2013. The Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that the Respondent has been
given all his benefits except gratuity which has been withheld on account of
the fact that the instant proceedings are pending. Having regard to the length
of service put in by the Respondent the gratuity should be in the region of
about Rs.1 to 1.15 lacs approximately.
6 Now coming to the challenge raised on behalf of the Petitioner in
the above Writ Petition, it is required to be noted that the Labour Court had
answered the preliminary issues in favour of the Petitioner namely that the
enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the enquiry
officer were not perverse. However, once having done so, the Labour Court as
can be seen has on the issue of proportionality of the proposed punishment
has observed that the punishment proposed was not in proportion to the
charges proved against the Respondent. The said finding of the Labour Court
has been confirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision by dismissing the
Revision Application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Road Transport
Corporation which as stated hereinabove plies its buses on various routes in
mmj 4 of 6
wp-4882-05(908)
Maharashtra for the convenience of the traveling public. In the instant case,
the cause for issuing the charge sheet to the Respondent was the fact that
there was a discrepancy in the issuance of tickets in respect of 7½ passengers.
In the enquiry it has been proved that 4½ passengers were travelling without
tickets. Though the amount involved might be meagre but having regard to the
fact that the Petitioner is a Road Transport Corporation, the charge leveled
against the Respondent was serious as the matter involves public revenue. This
Court as well as the Apex Court have upheld the punishments imposed on the
conductors of the Road Transport Corporation though the amounts are meagre
if the charge is held proved on the principal that the same amounts to
dishonesty in respect of public funds. In the instant case, since the Respondent
has retired and has been paid all his benefits except gratuity and since the
proceedings were at the stage where the show cause notice was issued to the
Respondent, it would be just and proper to substitute the punishment
proposed by the said show cause notice by the punishment of stoppage of one
increment for a period of 5 years from the year in which the show cause notice
which was on 28-2-1995. The Petitioner would therefore be entitled to recover
the said amount from the gratuity payable to the Respondent which gratuity
has been so far withheld. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent Mrs. Chopda on instructions of the Respondent who is personally
present in Court has no objection to the said course of action being followed.
The Petitioner accordingly to make calculation and after deducting the amount
mmj 5 of 6
wp-4882-05(908)
in terms of the directions as contained hereinabove and pay the balance of the
gratuity to the Respondent expeditiously.
7 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly
made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
mmj 6 of 6
