Bombay High Court
Laxhman Harischandra Madhvi vs Divisional Traffic ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
4. wp 8066-06.doc
Diksha Rane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
DIKSHA
DIKSHA
DINESH
DINESH
RANE WRIT PETITION NO. 8066 OF 2006
RANE Date:
2022.10.17
19:23:20
+0530 LAXMAN HARISCHANDRA MADHVI ..PETITIONER
VS.
DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT
MSRTC & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Mr. Sameer Mhatre i/b. Mr. Amol Mhatre for the petitioner.
Mr. G. S. Hegde a/w. Ms. Dharini Jain for the respondents-
MSRTC.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is to the judgment and order
passed by the Industrial Court dated November 13, 2006
thereby dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The
Revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 (hereafter 'the MRTU & PULP Act' for short) filed
before the Industrial Court by the petitioner challenging the
order passed by the Labour Court dated October 8, 2002
dismissing the complaint of unfair labour practices.
2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a
bus conductor with respondent-Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation (hereafter 'MSRTC' for short).
Sometime in 1998 the petitioner was assigned duties as a
4. wp 8066-06.doc
bus conductor on the Roha-Vithalwadi route. There was a
surprise check conducted by the MSRTC. It was found that
though the petitioner had collected fare from nine
passengers, however, he did not issue tickets. It is the case
of the petitioner that he was assigned the route for the first
time. He further contended that there was ample time for
the passengers to deboard the bus within which time he
would have issued the tickets.
3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on October 10,
1998. After conducting the full fledged disciplinary enquiry,
the Enquiry Officer reported that the misconducts levelled
against the petitioner stand proved. Accordingly, a show
cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be
dismissed came to be issued on February 23, 1999. The
petitioner challenged the show cause notice of dismissal by
filing a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 1a,
1b, 1f and 1g of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The
Labour Court held that the enquiry is fair, legal and proper
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be
perverse. The Labour Court then went on to dismiss the
complaint by the judgment and order dated October 8,
2002.
4. The order passed by the Labour Court was challenged
by the petitioner before the Industrial Court under Section
44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. By an interim order dated
November 13, 2006, the Industrial Court directed the
MSRTC to maintain status-quo in respect of the services of
4. wp 8066-06.doc
the petitioner. The interim order was continued till the
disposal of the revision. By an order dated November 13,
2006, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision. The
petitioner challenged the order passed by the Industrial
Court by way of the present writ petition.
5. On December 19, 2006, this Court issued 'rule' and
during the pendency of the writ petition, the status-quo
dated November 13, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court
was directed to be continued.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is reported
that the petitioner superannuated on May 31, 2013.
7. I have gone through the findings of the Labour Court
as well as the Industrial Court. The Labour Court took into
consideration the past service record and observed that as
many as eleven (11) instances were reported when the
petitioner was found to have recovered the fare for which
he has not issued tickets to the passengers. The Labour
Court observed that it is a case of misappropriation of the
public funds. So far as the past misconducts are concerned,
on four (4) occasions the petitioner was awarded the
punishment of stoppage of increment.
8. In ordinary course, there was no reason for me to
have interfered with the concurrent orders passed by the
Courts below as the findings cannot be said to be perverse.
9. However the intervening circumstance during the
pendency of the writ petition, that the petitioner has
4. wp 8066-06.doc
superannuated on May 31, 2013, will have to be taken into
consideration. What was challenged before the Labour Court
was a show cause notice of dismissal. The show cause
notice could not be taken to its logical conclusion due to the
pendency of the proceedings initially before the Labour
Court, then before the Industrial Court and ultimately in this
Court. The petitioner was protected by virtue of the interim
orders passed by the Courts below as well as this Court. In
view of the superannuation of the petitioner, there is no
question now of imposing any punishment of
dismissal/discharge/reduction/reversion in terms of the
Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of MSRTC. It is pointed out
that during the pendency of the proceedings, there is
nothing adverse reported against the petitioner till his
superannuation.
10. Though the punishment of dismissal/discharge/
reversion cannot now be imposed on the petitioner, yet the
petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free. The petitioner
is personally present in the Court. Learned counsel, on
instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to
voluntarily accept the punishment of withholding increment
for a period not exceeding three annual increments as
provided in the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of MSRTC. In
my opinion, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, though the orders
passed by the Industrial Court as well as the Labour Court
do not call for any interference, in view of the fact that now
4. wp 8066-06.doc
that the petitioner is superannuated, the punishment of
withholding increment for a period not exceeding three
annual increments, would meet the ends of justice.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of.
12. Rule is disposed of in the above terms.
13. No costs.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.)
