DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BHANDARA Vs. HARIHAR SHANKAR MOHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer has questioned the concurrent orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 23-2-1994 held that dismissal of present respondent from service by order dated 4-10-1986 was illegal and directed present petitioner to reinstate him with continuity and 50% back wages. The petitioner challenged this order in Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), before the Industrial Court, Bhandara, and the Industrial Court dismissed that revision on 5-9-1994. Thereafter present petition has been filed. This Court has admitted the petition on 21-2-1995 and granted stay to payment of back wages. The said stay is operating even today.

(2.) The respondent is working as a Conductor with petitioner and he was given a charge sheet on 20-3-986 for misconducts falling under clauses 10, 22 and 45 of Schedule "A" of Discipline and Appeal Procedure in relation to incidence dated 18-3-1986 and 19-3-1986. Clause 10 is about indiscipline, clause 22 is about violating any administrative circulator or order while clause 45 deals with consumption and being under influence of any alcoholic substance or liquor while on duty. It will be relevant to point out that said clause 45 which requires that employee must be shown to be under influence of alcohol or liquor has been amended later on and portion requiring proof of such influence has been removed and mere consumption of said substance while on duty has been made a misconduct.

(3.) The said order was questioned by the respondent by filing ULP Complaint before the Labour Court and later on said complaint was transferred to Labour Court at Bhandara, where it was registered as Complaint/PULP/ No.185 of 1989. The Labour Court delivered its judgment on 23-2-1994. It found that the departmental enquiry against the respondent was fair and valid, however, the findings were not justified. It held that misconduct allegedly committed on 18-3-1986 by the respondent was not proved. Similarly, misconduct under clause 45 in relation to incidence dated 19-3-1986 was also not proved. In para 23 it considered the gravity of misconduct and after presuming the allegations in relation to misconduct dated 18-3-1986 to be correct, it found that the act of respondent i.e. quarreling with Shri Shende while he was holding steering and bus was plying was very serious. It, therefore, granted respondent relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The said order has been maintained by the Industrial Court in revision. The Industrial Court also made reference to judgment dated 1-9-1982 in Writ Petition No.2806 of 1991 between M.S.R.T.C. Amravati vs. Ramchandra Ukandrao Jambhulkar, to hold that also test conducted by Depot Manager on 19-3-1986 could not have been relied upon to establish the misconduct.