Namdeo S/O Pandurang Parate vs M.S.R.T.C. Thr Its Divisional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10857 Bom

LPA 82-10                                       1                           Judgment

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 82/2010 IN W.P. NO.2467/1997 (D)

Namdeo s/o Pandurang Parate,
Aged Adult, R/o At & Post Chikhali (Kanhoba),
Taluka Ner, District Yavatmal.                                         APPELLANT
                                  .....VERSUS.....
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Through its Divisional Controller, Yavatmal.                         RESPONDENT

                     Shri B.M. Khan, counsel for the appellant.
                   Shri A.S. Mehadia, counsel for the respondent.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE      : 11TH AUGUST, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT              (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.2467 of 1997 dated 05.05.2009 is under challenge.

2. The appellant was employed as a Conductor with the

respondent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. During the

course of service on 23.08.1990, it was found while checking the bus in

which the appellant was the Conductor that certain used tickets had been

re-issued by him. A Departmental Enquiry was held and punishment of

dismissal was imposed on the appellant on 22.07.1991. The dismissal

order was challenged by filing a complaint under Section 28 of the

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, 1971. The learned Judge of the Labour Court

recorded a finding that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair

LPA 82-10 2 Judgment

and proper manner. After holding that the misconduct alleged against

the appellant was proved, the Labour Court proposed to adjudicate

whether the punishment of dismissal was valid. After noting that the past

service record of the appellant was not satisfactory, the Labour Court

directed reinstatement of the appellant but without back wages. The

revision application preferred by the Corporation was dismissed by the

Industrial Court. The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition

preferred by the Corporation was heard noted that for similar lapses in

the past, the annual increments of the appellant had been stopped on two

occasions and he had been fined on seven occasions. In view of these

facts and as the misconduct was duly proved, the order of dismissal as

imposed by the Corporation was restored. Being aggrieved, the original

complainant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri B.M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court having found that

the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate had rightly

modified the same by directing reinstatement without any back wages.

According to him after the proceedings were decided by the Industrial

Court, the services of the appellant were reinstated on 19.06.1998.

However, subsequently since it was found that there was an interim order

of stay granted in the writ petition, the appellant was again removed

LPA 82-10 3 Judgment

from service on 20.04.2002. During this period the services of the

appellant were satisfactory and on this count it was urged that the order

passed by the Labour Court as confirmed by the Industrial Court deserves

to be restored. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed

reliance on the decision in Scooter India Limited, Lucknow Versus

Labour Court, Lucknow [AIR 1989 SC 149]. It was thus submitted that

the order of the learned Single Judge was liable to be set aside.

4. Shri A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent on the

other hand supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the

past service record of the appellant was rightly taken into consideration

by the learned Single Judge while maintaining the order of dismissal.

Placing reliance on the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Versus Vinod Kumar [(2008) 1 SCC 115], it was submitted that the

punishment of dismissal was rightly imposed and the error committed by

the Labour Court and the Industrial Court was rightly corrected by the

learned Single Judge. No interference was therefore called for in the

present appeal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusing the material placed on record, we are satisfied that there is no

merit in the letters patent appeal. It is an admitted position that the

LPA 82-10 4 Judgment

enquiry held against the appellant was fair and proper. It is further not in

dispute that for about seven occasions the appellant was fined and on two

occasions his annual increments were withheld. It is thereafter that the

punishment of dismissal was imposed on him. The Labour Court as well

as the Industrial Court despite noticing the past record of the appellant

modified the punishment of dismissal. This error was corrected by the

learned Single Judge and in our opinion rightly so. It was clearly a case

of misplaced sympathy shown on the appellant.

6. The ratio of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel

for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the case in hand in the

light of aforesaid facts. The reinstatement for a short period when the

writ petition was pending is not very relevant in these facts. On the

contrary, the decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra)

supports the contentions of the respondent.

7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error

committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition filed

by the Corporation. The letters patent appeal is dismissed with no order

as to costs.

               (G.A. SANAP, J.)             (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE