DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION NAGPUR Vs. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT,NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (M.S.R.T.C.) challenges order dated 29th August, 1991 passed by Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision (ULPA) No.185 of 1987. By this order passed under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) in revisional jurisdiction, the Industrial Court quashed and set aside order dated 9th October, 1987 passed by First Labour Court, Nagpur dismissing the ULPA Complaint No. 688 of 1986.

(2.) THE Respondent No.1 was an employee working as a conductor with Petitioner M.S.R.T.C. His bus was checked on 19.01.1984 and out of total 47 passengers 12 passengers were found travelling without tickets. The charge was that from 11 passengers travelling from Gumgaon Mines to Patan Savangi Respondent No. 2 has collected fare amount of Rs. 13.20 ps. at the place where they boarded the bus but did not issue tickets to them. One passenger was travelling from Khapa to Bhandala and the Respondent No.2 collected Rs. 0.90 ps. towards fare from him but also did not issue ticket to him. It is mentioned that when way bill was checked ticket sale for the tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1.20, Rs. 31 - and Rs. 4.20 was not reflected in the said way bill and closing of column for sale of Rs. 3/ - tickets was not taken till the spot of checking. In this background charges under Clauses 7(a), 7(c), 7(d), 12(b) and 35(b) of Schedule -A of Discipline and Appeal Procedure were levelled against the Respondent No.2. After completing departmental enquiry it appears that the employee was dismissed from service on 30th September, 1986. The Respondent No. 2 employee challenged his dismissal by filing ULP Complaint under section 28 read with Item 1(b), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act before the First Labour Court at Nagpur.

(3.) THIS order of Labour Court was challenged in ULP Revision No. 185 of 1987 by the Respondent No. 2. He also challenged the finding reached by the Labour Court that enquiry is fair and valid. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has considered the validity of the departmental enquiry in para No.9 and 10 of its judgment and has found that Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor. It has quoted certain questions and also answers given to it to point out that by putting such questions to the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has acted to the prejudice of the defence of the employee.