(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 Sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereafter 'the MRTU and 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 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 and 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.