BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA Vs. GANGARAM MUTHYANNA MUKADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records:

(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 22-2-2000, passed in Appeal (1c) No. 22 of 1998 by the Industrial Court partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 6-2-1998 of the Labour Court', Mumbai, in Application (BIR) No. 1163 of 1984. By the said order, the Labour Court had 'directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred' to'as "the respondent) with full back wages and continuity in service with effect from 15-9-1984. " The Industrial. Court partly, allowed the appeal, modifying the order passed by the Labour Court to the extent of giving liberty to the petitioners to impose punish-ment instead of dismissal from service for the misconduct proved 'under Standing Orders 20 (k) and 20 (zi) while treating the respondent in continuous service with effect from 15-9-1984 and for his entitlement'thereof,

(3.) THE challenge to the impugned judgment and order is firstly on the count that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and even ignored the material evidence in the nature of testimony of Narayanrao Togalia, Clerk- cum-typist of the petitioners and Exhibit C- 15/h which is a statement in writing by one Dattu, confirming the payment of money as bribe to the respondent and thereby illegally rejected the contention of the petitioners that the respondent had accepted the bribe for recruitment of candidates as Navghanies. The second ground of challenge is that even assuming that the material's on record establish the misconduct in the form of loan:transaction between the employees, the said misconduct on the part of the respondent having been established, the grant of baqk wages would not have been ordered. The refusal of back wages could have been appropriate punishment for the proved misconduct. Reliance is placed in the decisions in the matters of (State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh)1, reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1512, and (Jitendra singhrathorv. Shribaidyanathayurved Bhawanltd. , arid another]2, reported in 1984 (3) S. C. C. 5. On other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that both the Courts on analysis of the evidence have arrived at the concurrent finding on the point of failure on the part of the petitioners to establish the charge of acceptance of bribe and it does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. Considering the nature of the misconduct and the fact that loan transaction was otherwise permitted provided there is prior permission for the same, and the fact that both the courts have ordered the reinstatement and the petitioners having been given liberty to impose some other appropriate punishment, and bearing in mind the ruling of the Apex court in (M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt, Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Put. Ltd. , and another)3, reported in 1979 (2) S. C. C. 80, there is no scope for interference in; the impugned judgment and order.