Bombay High Court
Ambadas Raghunath Wagh vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 15 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 2495/16
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2495/2016
Ambadas Raghunath Wagh,
Age 31 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o At Post Nandur Nimbadaitt,
Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.
ig ...Petitioner...
Versus
1 Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Ahmednagar Division,
Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar.
Through its Divisional Controller.
2 The Competent Authority &
The Divisional Traffic Inspector,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Ahmednagar Division,
Sarjepura, Kotla, Ahmednagar.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri P.V. Barde, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 15.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
WP 2495/16
- 2 -
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the
Labour Court dated 12.1.2016 by which application
(Exhibit U-2) seeking interim relief u/s 30(2) of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, has been rejected and
the status quo granted on 8.12.2015 was vacated. The
petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 23.2.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by
which Revision (ULP) No.5/2016 filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed.
3] Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner,
submits that on 10.3.2014, it was alleged by the
respondent - Corporation that the petitioner is under the
influence of liquor. He was charge-sheeted on 12.4.2014
and suspended on 13.3.2014. The suspension was revoked
on 14.5.2014. He, therefore, submits that
notwithstanding the charges leveled upon him, the
petitioner was reinstated in service as a Driver and
WP 2495/16
- 3 -
since then he has continued to perform his duties till
this date. He has been allotted overnight journeys and
in the last about two years, there has not been a single
instance of drinking while on duty or driving under the
influence of liquor. He further submits that in these
last two years from the date of the charge-sheet, he has
not committed a single accident.
4]
He further submits that he received a second
show cause notice dated 2.12.2015 alongwith the copy of
the Enquiry Officer's report. The Enquiry Officer,
beyond his scope of powers and jurisdiction, has proposed
the punishment of dismissal from service considering the
fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in
2013. Shri Barde, therefore, submits that the Enquiry
Officer could not have recommended the punishment as it
is indicative of a bias against the petitioner.
5] He submits that the fairness of the enquiry and
the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be looked into
by the Labour Court. Though the petitioner has joined as
a Driver in 2013 and the incident of having consumed
WP 2495/16
- 4 -
liquor has occurred on 10.3.2014, the fact remains that
he has not committed any accident till today. In these
circumstances, if he is dismissed by way of punishment,
it would cause an irreparable harm and serious prejudice
to the petitioner.
6] He further submits that the Labour Court as well
as the Industrial Court have lost sight of the fact that
the medical report was on record before both the lower
Courts and which indicates that though his breath was
smelling of liquor, the Medical Officer concluded that he
was normal, his speech was normal, he was physically
conducting himself in a normal manner and he was not
under the influence of liquor. With this medical report
on record, the proposed punishment of dismissal from
service may, prima facie, sound to be shockingly
disproportionate.
7] Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent - Corporation, has not disputed
the medical report, which is on record. He also does not
dispute that since joining the duties as a Driver from
WP 2495/16
- 5 -
2013 onwards, the petitioner has not caused any accident.
His past record is clean.
8] Shri Deshmukh does not dispute that though the
petitioner was suspended on 13.3.2014, same was revoked
on 14.5.2014 and ever since then he has been deployed on
various journeys inclusive of overnight journeys and long
distance journeys.
9] In order to assess the conduct of the petitioner
as on date, I had called upon Shri Deshmukh to take
instructions as to whether the petitioner was any time
apprehended in an intoxicated condition or was noted to
be on duty after consuming liquor. Shri Deshmukh has
placed on record Exhibit X, which is a communication from
the Depot Manager dated 3.3.2016, which indicates that
after the incident of 10.3.2014, the petitioner has never
been apprehended either under the influence of liquor or
upon consuming liquor. Exhibit X further indicates that
in the last two years, the Corporation was not required
to issue any disciplinary notice to the petitioner on
this count.
WP 2495/16
- 6 -
10] Shri Deshmukh, however, submits that the
management should be permitted to proceed to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings and that could be done only
after the management passes a final order of punishment
either of a minor nature or of a major nature. He,
therefore, submits that no interference is called for and
this petition be dismissed.
11] Shri Barde has tendered an affidavit of the
petitioner dated 12.3.2016, which is taken on record and
marked as Exhibit Y for identification. Vide the said
affidavit, he submits that the petitioner is willing to
work on any other post during the pendency of the
proceedings. He is willing to relinquish his duties as a
Driver and work with the respondent - Corporation till
the complaint pending before the Labour Court is decided.
12] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates, as recorded above, and the fact situation.
13] I have no doubt as to the risk involved with the
WP 2495/16
- 7 -
service of a drunkard driver. It is trite law that a
drunkard driver ought not to be kept in employment and
for that reason, any drunkard employee cannot be
tolerated and deserves the punishment of dismissal.
14] In the present case, the medical report, which
is on record, indicates that the breath of the petitioner
smelt of liquor. However, his physical appearance,
behaviour and conduct was normal and the Medical Officer
has ruled that he was not under the influence of liquor.
15] I am only considering this aspect while dealing
with the prayer of the petitioner for interim protection.
I make it clear that this prima facie assessment of the
medical report is not a conclusion on the said issue by
this Court and the Labour Court shall not be influenced
by these observations while deciding Complaint (ULP)
No.35/2015 on its merits.
16] I have thus considered the medical report
coupled with the fact that the respondents themselves,
for the reasons best known to them, have revoked the
suspension of the petitioner on 14.5.2014 and since then
he has been allotted duties, which include long distance
WP 2495/16
- 8 -
and overnight journeys. In this backdrop of the
petitioner having worked flawlessly for almost two years,
ends of justice would be met by continuing him in
employment till the complaint is decided by the Labour
Court within a time frame.
17] I have come to the above conclusion since I am
conscious of the fact that if the petitioner consumes
liquor even once and causes an accident, it would risk
the lives of the common men / citizens. Though the
respondent - Corporation prima-facie appears to be
careless in revoking the suspension and deploying the
petitioner on duty as a Driver in the last two years,
such carelessness can neither be countenanced, nor
permitted.
18] It is in this backdrop that I am accepting the
affidavit of the petitioner (Exhibit Y) and issuing
directions to the respondent, in order to balance the
equities, to allot the petitioner any duty otherwise than
as a Driver or a Cleaner on the Bus. His duties shall be
restricted to the Depot at which he is posted and he
WP 2495/16
- 9 -
shall not be allotted a duty to be discharged by boarding
a Bus in any capacity whatsoever.
19] The Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court
have protected the services of the petitioner and he is
in employment even today.
20] In the light of the above, this petition is
partly allowed. The impugned orders of the Labour Court
and the Industrial Court are modified as under:-
a] The petitioner shall be deployed on duty by
the respondent - Corporation on any post or
nature of duty other than as a Driver or a
Cleaner and shall not be posted on any Bus in any
form whatsoever.
b] His work shall be restricted to the Depot
at which he is presently posted at.
c] The Labour Court shall frame appropriate
issues with regard to the fairness of the enquiry
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the
light of the law laid down in Maharashtra State
Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation
WP 2495/16
- 10 -
Ltd. v. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande (2014 I CLR 878)
and MSRTC, Beed v. Syed Saheblal (2014 III CLR
547).
d] The litigating sides before the Labour
Court, in the peculiar circumstances as above,
shall refrain from seeking adjournments on
trivial or unreasonable grounds.
e] The Labour Court shall endeavour to decide
Complaint (ULP) No.35/2015 as expeditiously as
possible and preferably on or before the 30 th day
of December, 2016.
21] Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c1531626.doc
