Bombay High Court
Ranjeet Baburao Avhad vs Divisional ... on 22 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 911.wp.3299.97
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3299 OF 1997
Ranjit Baburao Awhad,
Age : Major, Occupation : Service,
R/o Naikwada, Dhule (Old),
Taluka and District Dhule.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Sachin Bhise h/f Shri S B Bhapkar.
None for Respondent.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 22nd December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial
Court dated 25.07.1997 by which Revision (ULP) No.75/1995 filed by the
Respondent/ MSRTC was allowed and Revision (ULP) No.366/1995 filed
by the Petitioner/ Employee was rejected.
2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has strenuously
*2* 911.wp.3299.97
criticized the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court on the following
grounds:-
(a) Though the enquiry has been sustained and has not been
vitiated, the Labour Court by it's judgment dated 25.01.1995
rightly concluded that the punishment of dismissal awarded
to the Petitioner was shockingly disproportionate.
(b) The Labour Court concluded in paragraph 15 that the
Petitioner may not have an intention to misappropriate the
amounts of the MSRTC.
(c) In paragraph 16, the Labour Court has rightly concluded that
"The misconduct committed by the Complainant could not be
dealt by dismissing him from service. At relevant incident,
normally another employer would have seriously warned to his
delinquent workman. So, I find that, the punishment awarded
by the respondent to the complainant has become shockingly
disproportionate, .......".
(d) The Labour Court, therefore, rightly directed reinstatement of
the Petitioner by giving him continuity of service and by
depriving him of back wages.
(e) The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 44 of
the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is revisional jurisdiction and is
*3* 911.wp.3299.97
extremely limited.
(f) In the limited jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, the finding
on facts cannot be upset merely because another view is
possible.
(g) While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Industrial Court
should be slow in interfering with the findings arrived at by
the Labour Court.
(h) The Industrial Court lost sight of the fact that the punishment
of dismissal for misappropriation of an amount of Rs.7696/-
was rightly held to be shockingly disproportionate by the
Labour Court.
(i) Even if it is accepted that the Petitioner had an amount of
Rs.10,140.50 belonging to the MSRTC, he had deposited
Rs.3069.50 and was unable to deposit Rs.7696/-.
(j) Merely because the Petitioner did not handover the amount
to the checking authority and merely because it was
established that the tickets worth Rs.10,140.45 were sold, it
does not prove that the Petitioner had intention to
misappropriate the money.
(k) The Industrial Court has been extremely harsh in sustaining
the order of punishment of dismissal.
(l) The misconduct of minor and technical nature, does not
*4* 911.wp.3299.97
attract the punishment of dismissal from service.
3 None appears for the Respondent/ MSRTC despite the matter
having been adjourned on 15.12.2016.
4 I have considered the contentions of the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner as recorded hereinabove and have also gone through the
seven grounds put forth by the Petitioner below paragraph 9 in the memo
of the petition.
5 The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Damoh
Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 (104) FLR
291, has concluded that only if the punishment awarded shocks the
judicial conscience of the Court and amounts to shockingly
disproportionate punishment, which any prudent person cannot award,
the Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment and can suitably
reduce the punishment. The Honourable Supreme Court has thus, held
that the circumstance in which an interference can be justified, is that the
punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate and not merely
disproportionate.
6 The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Janatha
*5* 911.wp.3299.97
Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) vs.
Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, 2000(7) SCC 517 : AIR 2000 SC
3129, has concluded that the amount of misappropriation is not relevant
for awarding the punishment. Whether, the amount is small or large, an
act of misappropriation or corruption has to be dealt with, with an iron
hand.
7 The learned Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of
P.R.Shele vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 33, has
concluded that no misconduct involving misappropriation or corruption or
moral turpitude can be termed to be a minor misconduct.
8 In the matter of Colour Chem Limited vs. A.L.Alaspurkar, AIR
1998 SC 948, the Honourable Supreme Court has concluded that unless
the misconduct is proved to be of a minor or technical character, Item 1(g)
of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 cannot be attracted.
9 There is no dispute in the instant case that the enquiry has
been sustained and the charge of misappropriation of Rs.7696/- has been
proved. It is settled law that after the charge is proved, the Court should
be cautious in causing an interference in the quantum of punishment. The
Default Card of the Petitioner indicates seven misconducts of
*6* 911.wp.3299.97
misappropriation for which he has been fined on seven occasions. This
would, therefore, operate as an aggravating factor.
10 In the light of the above, I find that the Industrial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the proved misconduct of
misappropriation is a grave and serious act and would not fall under Item
1(g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. It cannot be termed
to be a misconduct of a minor or technical nature.
11 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition being devoid of
merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
