VASANT NAMDEO CHAVAN Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions and as they arise from a common judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practices by the respondents. The petitioner was charge-sheeted to the effect that on 23-2-1992 after completing Bombay-Panvel-Mumbra trip he had misbehaved with his superior, that he had consumed liquor while on duty and he had delayed to deposit the cash amount collected from the passengers. He was referred to J. J. Hospital for his medical check up. After holding domestic enquiry and on completion of the necessary formalities of issuance of show cause notice, etc. , the petitioners services were terminated by order dated 30-6-1993. The Labour Court after hearing the parties, by its judgment and order dated 28-9-1998 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in the employment of the respondent-Corporation without back wages. Being aggrieved by the direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in services, the respondents filed Revision Application No. 28 of 1999 whereas being aggrieved by refusal of the back wages, the petitioner filed Revision Application No. 121 of 1999 before the Industrial Court. After hearing both the parties, the revision application filed by the respondent came to be allowed while the revision application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 30-11-2000.

(3.) THE impugned judgment and orders are sought to be challenged on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner in relation to the alleged misbehaviour with the higher officer of the respondent-Corporation as well as consumption of liquor while on duty and there was sufficient explanation for the delay in depositing the cash collection for the day on 23-2-1992 and yet the Court below overlooking the same erred in holding that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner and thereby to set aside the order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation submitted that there was no occasion for the respondent to lead any evidence on the point of misconduct on the part of the petitioner as the facts relating to misconduct, as were stated by the respondent, were clearly admitted by the petitioner and therefore only issue which was open for adjudication was in relation to the quantum of punishment and considering the nature of the misconduct, no fault can be found with the impugned order holding that the same being a major misconduct, the order of dismissal from services being the appropriate punishment imposed by the respondent-Corporation.