Bombay High Court
Jivan Bhujangrao Bharti vs M S R T C Beed And Ors on 16 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7119 OF 2006
Jivan s/o Bhujangrao Bharti,
Age-48 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Krishna Nagar,
Tq.Parli-Vaijnath, Dist.Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. M.S.R.T.Corporation,
Beed Division, Beed,ig
Through its Divisional Controller
2. The Divisional Transport
Superintendent (Offence)
M.S.R.T.C. Beed -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.B.R.Survase, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Dhongade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 16/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour
Court dated 23/11/2006 by which Complaint (ULP) No.33/2004 has
been dismissed. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment
of the Industrial Court dated 03/07/2007 by which his Revision
(ULP) No.52/2006 has been dismissed.
2. This petition was admitted by this Court on 13/03/2008.
khs/DEC.2016/7119-d
3. Mr.Survase, learned Advocate for the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that in
the 22 years of service of the petitioner as a Bus Conductor, the
charge of consuming alcohol while on duty has been levelled for the
first time. He further submits that he cannot be held guilty of being
intoxicated while on duty since medical tests, as required by medical
science for proving presence of alcohol in the body of an individual,
were not conducted. Placing reliance upon the medical examination
by a doctor cannot be the basis of the conclusion that the petitioner
was intoxicated. He further submits that an incompetent authority
has conducted the enquiry under the Discipline and Appeal
Procedure of the Corporation.
4. Mr.Dhongade, learned Advocate for the respondent/
Corporation has supported the judgments of the Industrial Court.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the record available.
6. By the part I judgment dated 10/10/2006, the Labour Court
concluded that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not
vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be termed as
being perverse. Based on the said conclusions, the Labour Court,
khs/DEC.2016/7119-d
thereafter proceeded to consider whether the punishment awarded
was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. By
the judgment dated 23/11/2006, the Labour Curt concluded that the
punishment awarded was commensurate and an employee, who is
intoxicated or is under the influence of liquor, cannot be kept in
employment.
7.
The petitioner filed Revision (ULP) before the Industrial Court
and challenged the Part-I as well as the Part-II judgment. The
Industrial Court revisited the entire record and proceedings before
the Labour Court and concluded that the enquiry cannot be said to
be vitiated since the principles of natural justice were followed.
8. In so far as the findings of the Enquiry Officer are concerned,
the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court relied upon the
report of the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Shirur, Dist.Pune when
the petitioner was subjected to medical examination since the bus
was halted at Shirur. After examining the petitioner, the doctor
opined that the petitioner's mouth and breath were smelling of
alcohol, he was unable to speak properly and was incoherent, he was
not able to maintain his physical balance and was swaying when he
walked. He further opined that petitioner's eyes demonstrated that
khs/DEC.2016/7119-d
he had consumed alcohol.
9. In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the findings on facts arrived at by the Labour Court and
confirmed by the Industrial Court. The petitioner has not pointed out
any such factor which would convince me to upset these findings on
facts.
10. In so far as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned,
there can be no dispute that reporting for duties by consuming alcohol
cannot be termed as being a minor misconduct. So also, the
petitioner was punished on 8 occasions in the past for different
misconducts. The past blemished service record is therefore an
aggregating factor.
11. It is informed that the petitioner has been paid his retiral dues
as well as gratuity. He has withdrawn his provident fund
accumulations.
12. Considering the above, this petition being devoid of merit, is
therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/7119-d
