GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at mumbai in Appeal (I. C.) No. 2 of 1996 by which the Industrial Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by setting aside the order of the Labour Court and confirming the order passed by the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Bus driver at Worli Depot, Mumbai. He was subjected to charge-sheet under standing Order 20 (j) on the ground that because of his rash and negligent driving, an accident took place on 29th June, 1993 and one pedestrian was killed. The domestic enquiry was conducted on the basis of the said charge-sheet and in the departmental enquiry it was proved that the petitioner was negligent in driving and accordingly he was removed from service. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Author. The petitioner thereafter sent an approach letter dated 6th July, 1994 but of no avail. The petitioner thereafter approached the Labour Court by way of Application (B. I. R.) No. 180 of 1994 on the ground that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and that he was wrongly dismissed from service by the management. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was held in a proper manner. However, the labour Court found that the punishment of dismissal is on higher side. On the aforesaid finding about punishment being shockingly disproportionate, an order of reinstatement was passed in favour of the present petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages by the 12th Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 13th February, 1995.

(3.) THE respondent being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations act, 1946 against the aforesaid order of the labour Court being Appeal (I. C.) No. 2 of 1996. The Industrial Court allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of the Labour Court by holding that when a misconduct of a serious nature is established, the labour Court should not have adopted such an approach by way of interfering with the order of punishment and by passing the order of reinstatement. The Tribunal also found that if the petitioner is to be reinstated in service, it may give licence to others placed in similar circumstances to go on committing accidents. The Industrial Court accordingly found that a soft approach cannot be taken in such type of cases. The Industrial court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Labour Court and upholding the decision of the management in dismissing the services of the petitioner. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned in this petition.