VIKRAM GOPALSINGH ZALPE Vs. MSRTC WARDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 3rd December, 2005 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as also the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 1st February, 2008 upholding the findings recorded by the Labour Court and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and also on merits. There is an inordinate delay in challenging the impugned order. The delay has not been satisfactorily and sufficiently explained by the petitioner. The petition suffers from laches and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Apart from the aforesaid position the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on merits. Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, rightly held that the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. The Courts also held that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 170/- from the passenger and though the bus had travelled for about 138 kms., after the recovery of the amount of Rs. 170/- from the passenger, the petitioner had not issued a ticket to the passenger till the bus was checked. The Courts rightly held that the intention of the petitioner was to misappropriate the amount received from the passenger. The Courts further found that the past conduct of the petitioner was also not unblemished. In his service as Conductor for only two years, the petitioner was punished on as many as seven occasions and on five occasions the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, due to shortage of amount. Considering the past service record of the petitioner, according to Courts it could not be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the act of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the misconduct committed by the petitioner was a serious misconduct and not a minor misconduct. The judgments appear to be just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.