LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-192

DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPDT. (DEFAULT)MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DIVISION PARBHANI, DIST. PARBHANI Vs. DAJIBA FAKIRRAO SHINDE AGE 46 YEARS, OCCU NIL, R/O RUPUR, TQ.KALAMNURI, DIST.HINGOLI

Decided On December 16, 2016
Divisional Traffic Supdt. (Default)Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Appellant
V/S
Dajiba Fakirrao Shinde Age 46 Years, Occu Nil, R/O Rupur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Labour Court dated 18/12/2009 partly allowing Complaint (ULP) No.13/2003 and the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 01/08/2012 by which Revision (ULP) No.16/2010 filed by the MSRTC has been dismissed.

(2.) I have considered the strenuous of Mr.Wange, learned Advocate for the petitioners, who has vehemently criticized the impugned judgments. He submits that an opportunity to conduct a de novo enquiry was not given to the Corporation after the enquiry was vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were branded as perverse in the same judgment by which the complaint was partly allowed. He, therefore submits that allowing of the complaint by the Labour Court is unsustainable and for the same reasons, the judgment of the Industrial Court is also rendered perverse.

(3.) He strenuously submits that the respondent/clerk was held guilty of misappropriation in the domestic enquiry. His act of misappropriation amounts to moral turpitude. Gratuity therefore stands forfeited under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Rules. Though the respondent has been reinstated in service, has superannuated and has been given his retiral pensionery benefits, gratuity has not been paid as the offence for which he has been punished constitutes moral turpitude.