LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-226

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. PRABHAKAR BAJIRAO

Decided On September 30, 2005
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Appellant
V/S
Prabhakar Bajirao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court at Sangli in Complaint (ULP) No. 87 of 1987 on 18th July, 1990 and duly confirmed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court vide his judgment and order dated 24th February, 1995 dismissing the Revision Application (ULP) No.119 of 1990.

(2.) THE petitioner is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra providing road transport services to the public at large throughout the State. The respondent was employed as a conductor under the petitioner -Corporation since 1965. On 3rd December, 1986 when the respondent was on duty on the bus of the petitioner -Corporation plying from Karad to Killa -Machin -dragad, the bus was checked by the Inspector and it was found during the inspection that the respondent had collected some amount from some of the passengers but had not issued tickets to them. On this count, he was charge sheeted and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer held him guilty into the charges levelled vide the charge sheet dated 4th December, 1986. The petitioner issued a second show cause notice dated 13th June, 1987 to the respondent and called for his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service on the basis of the Enquiry Officers report dated 13th April, 1987. This show cause notice came to be challenged in Complaint (ULP) No.87 of 1987 before the Labour Court at Sangli.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the Labour Court did not record a finding of unfair labour practice against the employer under a specific clause of Item No.1 of Schedule IV of the Act. On the contrary, the Labour Court concluded by saying: "For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the respondent has tailed to prove any of the unfair labour practice alleged against the complainant." However, the Industrial Court agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer but, noted that the Inquiry Officer recommended the punishment of dismissal from service without considering the past record of service of the complainant. It noted that under rule 6 (b) of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure framed by the Corporation, due regard will have to be given to the gravity to the misconduct and also the past record of service while recommending the punishment of dismissal. The Industrial Court therefore recorded a finding that the proposed punishment of dismissal was with undue haste or it was not in good faith and thus the employer was held to be guilty of unfair labour practice but, again without specifying any of the clauses of Item no.1 of Schedule IV of the Act by the Industrial Court as well.