BRIHAN MUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA Vs. PIRAJI C KHABALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first Respondent was employed as a Bus Driver with the Appellant-Undertaking on 3rd September, 1978. On 5th March, 1986, the first Respondent was assigned plying a bus on route 337. The bus driven by the first Respondent was proceeding from Sahar Cargo Complex towards Ghatkopar-Vikhroli along the Saki-Vihar Road. At about 11:50 a.m., when the bus reached at a spot which is described as Chopra Garage, Tunga Village, the first Respondent allegedly lost control of the bus. The bus crossed across the central road divider, travelled across to the other side of the road and met with a head-on collision with another bus coming from the opposite direction. In the course of the accident, 37 persons sustained injuries and both the buses were extensively damaged. Nine out of the 37 persons, including the first Respondent, sustained severe injuries and were required to be hospitalised.

(2.) A chargesheet was issued to the first Respondent by which disciplinary proceedings came to be convened on the allegation that the workman had committed a misconduct under Standing Order 20(j) of the Certified Standing Orders. An enquiry was thereupon conducted in which the first Respondent was represented by a Union representative. During the course of the enquiry, the Management examined several witnesses, including amongst them, some of the injured passengers. The defence of the first Respondent was that while he was driving the bus, he noticed a young boy crossing in front of the bus all of a sudden and that while trying to save the pedestrian, he had applied the brakes. The contention of the first Respondent was that in the process, the bus swerved towards the right, the steering wheel broke and the brakes failed as a result of which the bus mounted upon the central road divider and dashed a bus coming from the opposite direction.

(3.) The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the first Respondent. The past record of the first Respondent, upon scrutiny, was found not to be satisfactory. After the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, the first respondent was dismissed from service on 10th January, 1987. The departmental appeals filed by the first Respondent were dismissed. Thereupon the first Respondent moved the Labour Court in an application under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.