Bombay High Court
Datta Shankar Shinde vs The General Manager on 17 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:15514
Neeta Sawant 901-WP-4402-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2024
Datta Shankar Shinde .....Petitioner
: Versus :
1. The General Manager,
The BEST Undertaking
2. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal ....Respondents
Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Palshilkar with Ms. Heena Shaikh i/b. M.V. Kini & Coi., for the
Respondents.
Petitioner-Mr. Datta Shankar Shinde present.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 17 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C :
1) The petition challenges the judgment and order dated
14 September 2022 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court,
Mumbai dismissing Revision Application (ULP) No.60/2021 and
confirming the order on preliminary issues dated 20 November 2019 and
final judgment and order dated 17 November 2021 passed by the Labour
Court in Complaint (ULP) No.40/2019.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, 17 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 901-WP-4402-2024.docx
2) Petitioner was working as a Bus Conductor in Magathane
Bus Depot in Traffic Department of Respondent-BEST. He came to be
dismissed from service on 7 December 2018 after the charge levelled
against him in the chargesheet dated 6 January 2018 of absenteeism was
held to be proved. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and findings
of the Enquiry Officer were held to be not perverse by the Labour Court by
order dated 20 November 2019. Thereafter, the complaint came to be
dismissed by the Labour Court by judgment and order dated 17 November
2021. The Industrial Court has confirmed both the orders passed by the
Labour Court.
3) I have heard Mr. Mhatre, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner who is nominated by High Court Legal Services Authority. I
have also heard Mr. Palshikar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-BEST.
4) Mr. Mhatre, at the outset, would invite my attention to the
Circular dated 14 August 2025 issued by the Traffic Department
introducing reinstatement policy for Bus Conductors/Bus Drivers
dismissed on charge of remaining unauthorisedly absent. The
reinstatement policy introduced vide Circular dated 14 August 2025
provides for reinstatement of Bus Drivers/Bus Conductors who have
preferred departmental appeals against the order of dismissal. Only those
Bus Conductors/Bus Drivers are to be reinstated who are below the age of
55 years and had completed minimum service of five years. It appears that
Petitioner fulfills all conditions prescribed in Circular dated 14 August
2025, except filing of any departmental appeal against the dismissal order.
It appears that Petitioner had directly approached Labour Court
challenging the dismissal order without filing departmental appeal.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, 17 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 901-WP-4402-2024.docx
5) In my view, the benefit of Circular dated 14 August 2025
cannot be denied to the Petitioner only because he did not file
departmental appeal. The spirit behind issuing the said circular is that
Drivers and Conductors who have not indulged in serious misconduct and
are dismissed only on account of absenteeism, are given an opportunity to
serve the Respondent-BEST. Even otherwise, the penalty of dismissal was
not warranted for absence of 22 days. Though Petitioner was a chronic
case of indiscipline, in my view an opportunity deserves to be granted to
him. However while directing reinstatement, I am not inclined to grant
backwages to the Petitioner. I am also not inclined to grant benefit of
continuity so as not to put financial burden on BEST which is already
facing financial crunch. However for limited purpose of determining his
retirement benefits, the entire period of his service from the date of
appointment needs to be counted as continuous. Even the circular dated 14
August 2025 does not contemplate fresh appointment but envisages
'reinstatement'.
6) In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The judgment and order dated 14 September 2022 passed
by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in
Revision Application (ULP) No.60/2021 and final
judgment and order dated 17 November 2021 passed by
the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.40/2019
shall stand modified to the extent that the Petitioner
shall be reinstated in service within a period of 8 weeks
without any backwages.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, 17 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 901-WP-4402-2024.docx
(ii) The intervening period from the date of dismissal till
reinstatement shall be computed only for the purpose of
retirement benefits, including for gratuity.
(iii) Petitioner shall be subjected to medical fitness test and be
reinstated in service subject to clearing of medical
fitness test.
7) With the above directions, the petition is partly allowed and
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, 17 September 2025
