RAMESH GULABRAO BHANDE Vs. MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Complaint ULP No. 118 of 1995, the Labour Court at Amravati has set aside the order of dismissal of the complainant from service after holding an enquiry and directed his reinstatement to his former post of Conductor with continuity in service but without backwages. This judgment and order dated 23.06.1999 was the subject matter of challenge in Revision ULP No. 137 of 1999 by the respondent employer. The Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 03.08.2004 has set aside the same and dismissed the complaint. Hence, the employee is before this Court in this writ petition.

(2.) The bus in question was plying from Chandola to Daryapur. Total 49 passengers were travelling in a bus, out of which 43 passengers were issued tickets. The charge against the petitioner was that though he collected the fare from 4 passengers boarded at Sasan, the tickets were not issued to them. In respect of other 2 passengers, the charge was that neither the tickets were issued to them nor the fare was collected from them, who boarded at Chandola and Nandrun. It was also the charge that luggage fare from one passenger was also not collected.

(3.) The Labour Court has recorded the finding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was found to be legal, proper and fair in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the Labour Court has held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The Labour Court has held that though the fare was collected from the passengers who boarded at village Sasan, in a bus plying from Chandola to Daryapur, the tickets were not issued to them. The conductor was in the process of issuance of ticket and the distance was hardly 8 kms., and it cannot be said that the complainant was negligent in performing his duties. The Industrial Court has held that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer. There was ample material available for proving the act of misconduct alleged against the complainant and hence, the question of perversity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer does not at all arise.