DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC Vs. PRAMOD ONKARRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The present appeal arises from the order and judgment dated 20-6-1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1995. By the impugned order and judgment the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The said petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 10-01-1995 passed by the industrial Court, Amravati in ULPA No. 25 of 1986. By the said order the Industrial Court, while allowing the revision application filed by the respondent, had set aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-Corporation and had directed reinstatement of the respondent with the continuity of service but without back wages. The said revision application was filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 03-11-1982. The Labour Court vide its order dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal dated 11-02-1981 issued by the appellant-Corporation. The said order of dismissal was passed, by the corporation, after holding necessary enquiry in accordance with the provisions of law and on the ground that the respondent was found having collected the ticket fare from three passengers without issuing tickets to the said passengers. The Labour Court as well as the industrial Court came to the concurrent finding that the misconduct on the part of the respondent was clearly established in the enquiry, and therefore, no fault could be found with the enquiry. The Labour Court had found the punishment imposed on the respondent; in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be appropriate, however, since in revision application the Industrial Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement, the matter came up in the writ petition but without any success. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the appellant, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Janatha Bazar, etc. Vs. Secretary Sahakari Noukarana sangha etc.- 2000 (11) CLR 568; Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation Vs. B. S. Hullikatti - 2001 (88) FLR 912; Bharat Heavy electricals Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrasekhar reddy and others - (2005) 2 SCC 481; Regional manager, U. P. STRTC, Etawath and others vs. Hoti Lal and another - (2003) 3 SCC 605 and T. N. C. S. Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, has submitted that the inquiry conducted in the matter having been found to be just and fair, there was no occasion for the Industrial Court to interfere in the punishment imposed by the management. He further submitted that the quantum of punishment is always a discretion of the management and unless it is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct established, the Industrial Court could not have interefered with the punishment imposed by the Corporation. In the case in hand, according to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the misappropriation clearly disclosed the misconduct of serious nature on the part of the respondent-Conductor, and that having been established, he had lost confidence of the management, and therefore, the order of dismissal of the respondent from the service could not have been interefeed with and the punishment could have not been held to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Scooters India Ltd. , Lucknow vs. Labour Court, Lucknow and others -1989 scc (L and S) 180; Colour-Chem Ltd. Vs. A. L. Alaspurkar and others - 1998 (1) CLR 638 : [1998 (2) ALL MR 73 (S. C. ) ] and of the division Bench of this Court in Vikas Textiles vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh - 1991 (11) L. L. J. 451, has submitted that in absence of proper evidence regarding the stage at which the tickets were required to be issued, merely because the fare charges were collected, in absence of evidence of the time and alighting the bus and as to where the passengers had alighted the bus, was produced and clearly established by the corporation, no fault could be found with the order passed by the Industrial Court, and therefore, the Industrial Court was justified in holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct in the matter. He further submitted that considering the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Scooter India Limited Vs. Labour Court, fair opportunity should be given to the employee to reform himself and to prove to be a loyal and disciplined employee. Considering the said laws which was laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Scooter India ltd. Vs. Labour Court, the approach adopted by the Industrial Court in the matter of interfering with the punishment of dismissal which was imposed by the management could not be found fault with.