KANKALESHWAR SONAPPA NARE Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Bus Conductor in the employment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, came to be charge sheeted for misconduct. According the charge sheet, 31 passengers were found to be travelling without bus ticket when the flying squad intercepted the bus. The statement of the passengers were recorded at the spot. The way bill maintained by the petitioner showing stage-wise sale of tickets and number of passengers travelling in bus was also taken in possession by the squad. Pursuant to the misconduct, an enquiry came to be conducted and in the enquiry, the misconduct came to be proved and, as such, the employer proceeded to pass an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE said order of dismissal came to be challenged by filing a Complaint before the Labour Court under Section 28 read with Schedule IV Item 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court was called upon to answer the basic contention of the complainant, to the effect that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and justly but the same was conducted in breach of principles of natural justice and fair play. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted fairly and reasonable opportunity was granted to the complainant during the enquiry. In support of the said finding, the Labour Court has observed that the enquiry was adjourned on number of times when a request was made by the complainant; the enquiry was conducted in presence of Union representative; complainant was also given an opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses even after closing of their cross examination and the said witnesses were recalled for further cross examination at the instance of the complainant. If this be the conduct of the enquiry, the said finding of the Labour Court cannot be faulted.

(3.) MR. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer acted with a bias against the present petitioner, inasmuch as, he has not called the passengers as witness despite moving of an application for the said purpose by the present petitioner. It is further contended that an application was moved for change of the Enquiry Officer but the same was not favourably considered. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Inspector was not called for further cross examination and thus prayer came to be rejected causing prejudice to the complainant in the enquiry.