The Divisional Cont. M S R T C ... vs Kisan Shahadu Bodade
2017 Latest Caselaw 8957 Bom

                                                                      WP/210/2003
                                         1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2003

 The Divisional Controller,
 Maharashtra State Road
 Transport Corporation,
 Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon.                           ..Petitioner

 Versus

 Kisan Shahadu Bodade
 R/o at Adilabad, Tq. Jalgaon
 District Jalgaon.                                    ..Respondent

                                        ...
                   Advocate for Petitioner : Shri M K Goyanka 
                    Advocate for Respondent : Shri G V Wani 
                                        ...

                         CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: November 22, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. The petitioner / Corporation is aggrieved by the common

judgment dated 5.10.1998, delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, by

which, Complaint (ULP) No.151 of 1997 filed by the respondent

challenging his third dismissal, has been allowed. The petitioner is also

aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 22.10.2002, in

Revision (ULP) No.684 of 1999, which was dismissed.

2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

the respective sides. Subsequent events have also been narrated.

WP/210/2003

3. The record reveals that the respondent, who was working as a

Conductor, was initially dismissed for the first time on 28.8.1989 for a

proved misconduct of misappropriation. In the first appeal, his

punishment was reduced and he was continued in employment.

Thereafter, he was again dismissed on 30.6.1990 for a proved

misconduct of reporting for duties under the influence of liquor. His

punishment was reduced in his second appeal and he was reinstated on

6.9.1992.

4. On 7.10.1995, the petitioner was dismissed for the third time,

which is a subject matter of this petition for having reported for duties

under the influence of liquor.

5. I find from the impugned judgment of the Labour Court that the

domestic enquiry was upheld, findings of the Enquiry Officer were held

to be partly perverse, Complaint was partly allowed and the respondent

was granted reinstatement with continuity without backwages. All this

has been done in a single judgment, which is impermissible in law,

considering the first judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex Court

in the matter of Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. Vs.

The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., [AIR 1965 SCC 1803] and then

in a catena of judgments in the last sixty years.

WP/210/2003

6. However, it is informed that the impugned judgment of the

Labour Court has been implemented by reinstating the respondent in

service. This Court refused interim relief while admitting the petition on

3.2.2003. Subsequently, the respondent has again been dismissed for

the fourth time for proved mis-conduct of misappropriation on

4.5.2001. This dismissal has not been challenged by the respondent.

7. I am informed that all retiral benefits, except gratuity has been

paid to the respondent after his fourth dismissal. As the dismissal dated

4.5.2001 is on account of moral turpitude, he had been deprived of

gratuity and therefore, this petition is rendered infructuous.

8. Considering the above, this petition is disposed off as being

infructuous. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d