Bombay High Court
Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C ... vs Sayyed Babu Sayyed Bannu on 12 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/577/2000
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 577 OF 2000
Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport corporation,
Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
Sayyed Babu Sayyed Bannu
Age 42 years, Occ. Service
R/o Karim Nagar, Kannad,
District Aurangabad. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Smt. R.D.Reddy
Advocate for Respondent : Shri P.L.Shahane
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: May 12, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. I have heard learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length.
2. Considering the order that I intend to pass, I am not
required to advert to their entire submissions.
3. The respondent was alleged to have committed an accident
in his capacity as a Bus Driver with the MSRTC on 12.3.1981. The
accident led to the death of a cyclist. The Court of Criminal
WP/577/2000
jurisdiction acquitted the respondent of the charge of causing the
death of a cyclist in S.T.C.T. 5441 of 1986 by judgment dated
2.6.1986. He was honourably acquitted.
4. The petitioner found the respondent guilty of the
misconducts under it's Discipline and Appeal Rules, after
conducting a departmental enquiry. He was dismissed from service
by way of punishment on 12.9.1990.
5. The respondent preferred Complaint (ULP) No.326 of 1990,
which was allowed partly by the judgment of the Labour Court
dated 28.9.1995 granting him reinstatement in service without
continuity and full backwages.
6. Both the sides preferred Revision (ULP NO.89 of 1995 and 3
of 1996. By the impugned judgment dated 30.3.1998, the Industrial
Court allowed the Revision filed by the respondent and granted
continuity and full backwages along with reinstatement. The
Revision Petition of the petitioner MSRTC was dismissed.
7. This Court while admitting this petition on 25.6.2001, stayed
the direction of payment of full backwages to the extent of 80%
and directed the MSRTC to deposit 20% of the backwages.
WP/577/2000
8. In an independent proceeding earlier, the respondent Driver
was dismissed from service on 23.3.1990. He was found guilty of
having forged a school leaving certificate and having acquired his
employment with the MSRTC on the basis of the forged document.
He was dismissed on 23.3.1990.
9. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.149 of 1990 for challenging
his dismissal dated 23.3.1990. He was granted interim relief on
3.4.1990 and he, therefore, continued in employment till his
subsequent dismissal dated 12.9.1990. He is said to have been
reinstated in service pursuant to the said interim relief dated
3.4.1990.
10. By judgment dated 15.2.2001, Complaint (ULP) No.149 of
1990 was dismissed and the dismissal of the respondent dated
23.3.1990 was sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondent then filed Revision (ULP) No.27 of
2001 before the Industrial Court and by judgment dated 19.7.2004,
his Revision Petition was dismissed. He has not challenged the said
judgments of the Labour and Industrial Courts before this Court or
any other superior Court.
11. It is, therefore, apparent that even if the impugned two
judgments are sustained, it would not further the cause of the
WP/577/2000
respondent as he has been dismissed from service in an
independent proceeding. The said dismissal dated 23.3.1990 has
been sustained. Considering the above, this petition can be
disposed off as it has become infructuous, keeping in view that the
dismissal of the respondent dated 23.3.1990 has attained finality.
12. Issue is as regards wages for the period from 24.3.1990 till
his reinstatement pursuant to the interim order dated 3.4.1990
and upto his subsequent dismissal dated 12.9.1990. It is informed
that the respondent may have worked for a few days in between
23.3.1990 and 12.9.1990.
13. Considering the above, this petition is disposed off as being
infructuous since the impugned judgments cannot be implemented
in the light of the dismissal of the respondent dated 23.3.1990
having been sustained by the Labour and Industrial Court, which
has attained finality. Hence, for the duration in between
23.3.1990 and the date of reinstatement of the respondent before
his subsequent dismissal dated 12.9.1990 (the respondent must
have earned his salary pursuant to his reinstatement), he will be
entitled for 50% backwages so as to reduce the rigors of litigation
suffered by the respondent.
14. Rule is, therefore, discharged and the petitioner / MSRTC is
WP/577/2000
at liberty to calculate the above mentioned short period of
unemployment so as to compute 50% backwages and make the said
payment to the respondent within a period of four months from
today.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
