RAMESH GOPINATH Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, petitioner employee challenges the Judgment dated 27/8/2008 delivered by Member, Industrial Court, Akola in Revision U.L.P. 45/1997. Said Revision was under section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter mentioned as Act No I of 1971). Learned Member has allowed the Revision file by respondent M.S.R.T.C. and has set aside the judgment passed in U.L.P. Complaint 45/1994 on 18/ 6/1997 by Labour Court, Akola. The said U.L.P. Complaint was filed by present petitioner challenging the show cause notice dated 24/2/1994 proposing punishment of dismissal after completing departmental inquiry, as said show cause notice was found to constitute unfair labour practice by Labour Court. I have heard Advocate P.N. Verma for petitioner and Advocate V.G. Wankhede for respondent.

(2.) Misconduct here is of unauthorised driving of empty M.S.R.T.C. bus by petitioner conductor from bus depot to bus station while regular driver was sitting on battery box. Details of misconduct are not necessary in present matter because after this judgment dated 18/6/1997 of Labour Court, the respondent M.S.R.T.C. filed Revision 45/ 1997 and thereafter proceeded to impose lesser punishment on 30/8/1997 for very same misconduct. His salary was brought down by two stages permanently and period of suspension was regularised as paid leave and balance thereof as unpaid leave if requisite paid leave was not available to his credit. It is not in dispute that accordingly entry was made in his service book and petitioner earned the revised i.e. less salary thereafter. Petitioner pointed out these developments to learned Industrial Court and urged that the earlier show cause notice dated 24/2/1994 was already rendered infructuous.

(3.) Learned Member considered arguments in U.L.P. Revision on merits ignoring the contention that because of punishment of reduction in salary by two stages said show cause notice has lapsed or become infructuous. There is no application of mind insofar as the effect of said punishment on challenge before it is concerned. Perusal of its judgment particularly paragraph 29 shows that it has rightly considered the non-application of mind by Labour Court to vital aspects like the consequences of grave and irresponsible act of petitioner or then his past service record. The application of mind by learned member, Industrial Court particularly in paragraph 30-31 in this background cannot be labeled either as erroneous or perverse or then in excess of jurisdiction available to it under section 44 of Act No. I of 1971. But then impact of voluntary act of petitioner of selecting and imposing another punishment in the matter needed consideration.