Bombay High Court
Ramrao Vitthalrao Waghmode vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 22 December, 2023
2023:BHC-AUG:27129
1 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15192 OF 2023
Ramrao Vitthalrao Waghmode
Age : 46 years, Occ.: S.T. Driver,
Batch No.21496, R/o : Bhakarwadi,
Post, Ajan Sonda, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Through its Divisional Controller,
S.T. Divisional Office, Aurangabad.
2. Divisional Traffic Superintendent,
(D.T.S. Default) (Competent Authority)
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
S.T. Divisional Office, Aurangabad. ...Respondents
****
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pradip Shahane a/w Mr. Shahane Parag P.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Manoj D. Shinde
****
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th DECEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd DECEMBER 2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties. Heard learned counsel for the litigating
sides finally.
2. The petitioner is employee of respondent-corporation.
He has filed complaint bearing ULP No. 21 of 2023 challenging
2 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
show-cause notices dated 27.09.2023, which is pending. His
application Exh-U2 under section 30(2) of The Maharashtra
Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for sake of
brevity and convenience) seeking stay to the execution of show
cause notice and repudiating it was rejected by learned judge of
the labour Court on 10th October,2023. The revision filed by the
petitioner against the order was dismissed by judgment and
order dated 28.11.2023 by learned member of Industrial Court,
Aurangabad. The petitioner has challenged order dated 10.10.2023
and 28.11.2023 in the present petition.
3. The petitioner is working as a driver with the
respondent. On 15.07.2023, he was driving bus and met with an
accident. He was referred to the medical examination. On the
basis of the complaints and the reports, the respondent proposed
disciplinary action by appointing enquiry officer. The gravamen
of the allegation is that he was driving under influence of alcohol.
4. On 24.07.2023, charge-sheet comprising of five charges
was served upon the petitioner. He submitted reply. Thereafter,
full fledged enquiry was conducted. Considering the material on
3 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
record, report was prepared by the enquiry officer holding him
guilty for the charges. The petitioner was served with show-cause
notice dated 27.09.2023 for imposing punishment of dismissal. He
has challenged the same before the labour Court with interim
application Exh-U-2.
5. The respondent is contesting the proceeding before
the labour Court. An interim application Exh-U-2 was also
contested. After hearing the parties, the application was rejected.
It is brought on record that on previous two occasions petitioner
indulged in self-same misconduct and the disciplinary action was
taken. The opportunity of hearing has been extended to the
petitioner during present enquiry. There is strong material on
record including report of the enquiry officer to indicate
misconduct of a serious nature.
6. There was ad-interim protection to the petitioner
pending his application Exh-U-2 before the labour Court. After
rejecting application Exh-U-2, the interim protection was
extended till 30.10.2023. It was in operation till disposal of revision.
Thereafter, also it was extended up to 13.12.2023. It is further
extended till final decision by this Court.
4 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced
following submissions.
a) The allegations against the petitioner are false and the
accident was due to the mistake of the truck driver. There was no
fault on the part of the petitioner.
b) There is no material against the petitioner. The statements
of the passengers were not recorded. No blood or urine samples
of the petitioner was collected. Nobody has seen the petitioner
consuming liquor. He was not under influence of alcohol.
c) The enquiry is defective and the findings to the charges
recorded in the report are perverse.
d) The statement of the conductor supports the petitioner.
Medical report is dicey. The cross-examination of a witness is
overlooked.
e) The past history of the petitioner is not incriminating. There
was only one punishment. In respect of the another incident
matter is sub-judiced.
f) The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and the balance of
convenience tilts in his favour. The complaint pending before
labour Court can be expedited by permitting the petitioner to
render services in some other capacity.
g) The complaint against show cause notice is maintainable
before the labour Court under the provisions of section 28 read
5 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
with item No. 1 (a), 1(g) of schedule 4 of the Act.
h) There is strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner.
There is bound to be order of dismissal. Hence, replying the show
cause notice was an empty formality.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to
following judgments.
a. Jai Mangal Ram and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
b. Munna Lal Vs. Union of India
c. Bacchubhai Hassanali Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra
d. Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
e. Sangram Yadav Vs. State of U.P
f. Narendra datta rai vs. Union of India
g. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi
and Anr.
h. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate
9. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to different orders passed by single judges in the matters
of respondent-MSRTC, to buttress the following submissions.
a) To expedite the hearing of the main complaint, without
disturbing the status of the petitioner.
6 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
b) To continue the interim relief till disposal of main complaint.
c) To dispose of the petition without entering into merit by
directing the parties to co-operate for final disposal of main
complaint.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has advanced
following submissions.
i) The petitioner has a track history of indulging into successive
misconduct of similar nature. Driving bus under influence of
liquor is extremely serious charge which endangers the lives and
the property of the corporation.
ii) Petitioner was found guilty and punished in the year 2014. In
the year 2022, again enquiry was conducted for the same charge
and the matter is pending. Within one year, the present incident
took place involving accident. This is the gravest form of
misconduct.
iii) Considering the gravity of the charges, and successive
indulgence various orders passed by Hon'ble Single Judges
referred in the last paragraph by learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be made applicable.
iv) There is adequate material against the petitioner for holding
7 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
him guilty. It includes complaint, statements, medical report, oral
evidence and report of enquiry.
v) Due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. There
is no apparent defect in the enquiry.
vi) The adequacy of the material to support the charges and
findings recorded by enquiry officer cannot be gone into at this
stage.
vii) The submissions of the petitioner regarding want of blood/
urine sample, want of material to establish consumption of liquor
cannot be considered at this stage.
viii) Both the courts below have considered all facets of the
matter and passed orders which are plausible. No case is made
out to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below.
ix) The petitioner will get opportunity to make out a case
during the course of hearing in complaint or thereafter also.
x) In the judgment cited by the petitioner, there is not against
show cause notice.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to rely
8 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
upon following judgments.
a. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sudam
Narayan Chaudhari
b. Vasant Namdeo Chavan Vs. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation
c. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing
Federation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande
d. Air India Ltd. Vs. L.R. Solanki and Another
e. Tata Infomedia Limited (Erstwhile Tata Press Limited) Vs.
Tata Press Employees Union & Another
f. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Suryabhan
Popat Londhe
12. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I
have given due consideration to the judgments and the orders
cited by the petitioner which are focused on the incident dated
15.07.2023 are accident of bus which was driven under influence.
13. There is a material produced against the petitioner in the
form of statements, complaint, medical report and depositions
and enquiry report. The charges are found to be proved by the
enquiry officer. It is not a case that there is absolutely no material
9 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
against the petitioner and a disproportionate penalty of dismissal
is proposed. Apparently, there is a medical certificate indicating
the consumption of alcohol at the relevant time. The complaint of
passengers, the statement of traffic controller, statement of
conductor make out misconduct against the petitioner. The
probative value of the material, the validity of the findings
recorded to the charges can be considered at the appropriate
stages of the proceedings. Both the courts below, therefore have
rightly considered that there is material against the petitioner.
14. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is no independent evidence, passengers are not
examined, the statement of the conductor supports the petitioner
and there is a want of blood/urine report can not be considered at
this stage of the proceedings. The submissions on the merits of
the charges and the disciplinary action can be dealt with at the
appropriate stages of the proceedings by the competent Court.
What is the purport of not collecting blood/urine sample, so
called admissions given in cross-examination can be assessed
either by the labour Court or by the competent forum if the
punishment is imposed and challenged.
10 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
15. It is not a case of the petitioner that an imaginary
incident is shown and there is false implication. Further it is not a
case that the respondent is proposing shockingly
disproportionate punishment against the petitioner that no
employer can ever impose. Pertinently, no submissions are made
by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that there is
violation of the principles of natural justice or there is utter
breach of the procedure prescribed or there is apparent
miscarriage of justice. It is concurrently and rightly recorded that
there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner.
16. The respondent has placed on record track history of
the petitioner which is alarming. In the year 2014, the petitioner
was found guilty for misconduct of discharging duties under
influence of alcohol. A punishment was imposed. In 2022, for self-
same charge disciplinary action was taken. A show-cause notice
was also issued for imposing major punishment but there was
protection by the Court. However, the petitioner has not been
exonerated from the misconduct. Within span of one year, again
the petitioner is found to be under influence of alcohol. It is the
gravest form of misconduct apparently. The track history
11 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
demonstrated by the respondent distinguishes present case from
the judgments and the orders cited by the petitioner across the
bar.
17. The petitioner is a driver. He is repeatedly committing
misconduct. No employer would permit bus driver to discharge
the duty of public transportation. There is room to infer that the
petitioner is habitual. Conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him to
claim any discretion. The Court should not have granted any
interim protection and let the complaint be proceeded on its
merits. The petitioner is not remediless even if orders in future
are passed against him. I hold that the petitioner does not
deserve any sympathy or discretion. No case is made out to
direct the labour Court to decide the complaint of the petitioner
which is filed recently, by giving precedent.
18. Both the courts below have arrived at reasonable and
proper conclusion regarding prima-facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss. I approve the findings
recorded by them.
19. The judgments cited by the petitioner in respect of
12 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
Munna Lal Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 1 SCC 399,
Bacchubhai Hassanali Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
1971 (3) SCC 930, Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P reported in
MANU/UP/1402/2022 Sangram Yadav Vs. State of U.P reported in
MANU/UP/0766/2022, Narendra datta rai vs. Union of India reported
in MANU/WB/0524/2018 disclose that final punishment was
imposed on the delinquent and then matters reached
appropriate forum. The judgment of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs
Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi and Anr. Reported in 2006 I CLR 902 (Bom.
H.C) lays down the scope of the Court in the matters of interim
relief. The proposition in its paragraph No. 23, 27 and 33 are not
disputed.
20. The judgments in the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate reported in 1995 II CLR 823 rendered by the
Supreme Court is regarding maintainability of complaint against
show-cause notice which is not fact in issue in the present matter.
Paragraph No.24 and 26 which are referred by the petitioner may
not take the case any further. The judgment of Allhabad High
Court in the matter of Jai Mangal Ram Vs. State of U.P and others
reported in MANU/UP/3992/2023 is also rendered after imposition
13 924.WP-15192-2023.doc
of final punishment. The reference to paragraph No. 14 can be
best made after imposition of penalty.
21. The judgment cited by the respondent are mainly
depicting the scope of enquiry while dealing with the matters
arising out of the disciplinary action. I have gone through the
relevant paragraphs of those judgments. I am of the considered
view that those may not be useful to decide the controversy
involved in this matter at this juncture.
22. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the
petition.
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ii. Needless to mention that the interim orders shall cease to
operate.
iii. The Rule is discharged.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
Najeeb.
Signed by: Mohammad Najeeb
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/12/2023 15:34:34
