PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT Vs. SHANKAR LAXMAN AWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Pune Municipal Transport is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Labour Court dated 13th September, 1994 and the order passed the Industrial Court in revision application on 28th September, 1995. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. Both the courts have directed reinstatement of the respondent driver with full backwages and continuity of service. Even before this Court, the order of reinstatement found favour and, therefore, on 7th February 1996, the petitioner was directed to re-instate the respondent workman. It appears that the rule was restricted to the question of backwages to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- out of which the petitioner appears to have deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Industrial Court, Pune.

(2.) THE respondent joined the services of the petitioner as a driver on 1-11-1971. He was dismissed from service on 17-2-1984 for the alleged acts of misconducts that he had gone to the residence of the Transport Manager and had abused him and that he was under the influence of Alcohol. Before the order of dismissal was issued, it appears that a charge-sheet was given and the enquiry was held in the charges against the respondent. On the basis of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner dismissed the respondent workman from employment.

(3.) THE respondent workman filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court under section 28 read with section 30 and Item I of Schedule IV of the (M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act ). The parties appeared before the Labour Court and adduced their pleadings and documentary evidence and oral evidence. The Labour Court, recorded a finding on the basis of the material on record that the enquiry held by the petitioner was not fair and proper and the same was vitiated. The main ground on which the Labour Court held the enquiry to be vitiated was that the main witness Shri Momin who was examined in the enquiry left the enquiry in the midst and he was never offered for cross-examination. The second ground was that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has enumerated these lapses in the conduct of the enquiry and held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. I cannot find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry was vitiated for the reasons recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper as the delinquent workman was not given opportunity to defend himself. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of proving the misconduct before the Labour Court. The petitioner examined only the Enquiry Officer before the Labour Court, whose evidence was of futility as far as the merits of the misconduct was concerned. There was no witness examined by the petitioner before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct and to justify its action of dismissal. The Labour Court, therefore, has rightly found that the petitioner had failed to justify its action of dismissal of the respondent driver. The Labour Court, recorded a finding that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice as alleged by the respondent in his completion (sic complaint ). The Labour Court has followed the normal rule of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The Labour Court has considered the entire material on record and has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent workman was not proved and, therefore, his dismissal amounted to unfair labour practice. The Labour Court, therefore, has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and with backwages for the entire period at the rate of last drawn wages. The Labour Court has not granted the full backwages for the whole period but appears to have restricted the grant of backwages at the rate of last drawn wages i. e. the wages which were drawn by the delinquent workman in February 1984. The Labour Court, indirectly, therefore, appears to have punished the respondent by denying him the larger portion of the backwages. The respondent did not challenge the said order before the Industrial Court and accepted the same. The petitioner, however, was aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court and, therefore, filed revision application before Labour Court under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. Even the Industrial Court has gone through the entire material threadbare and has found that the trial Court had not committed any illegality or any perversity in its findings. The Industrial Court has confirmed the order of the Labour Court in the revision as, there was absolutely no error of law and not even an error of fact apparent on the face of the record. The Labour Court appears to have gone into the entire matter as reflected from its order. The respondent workman has not challenged the order of denial of part backwages even before this Court.