PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT Vs. BABULAL A DHOTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Respondent was working as a driver with the Pune Municipal Transport Undertaking. On 3rd November, 1986 he was on duty in the morning shift and was assigned to a bus plying on Route No.61 from the City Post to Pune Station. While the bus was being taken in the reverse gear, and was being driven by the First Respondent it dashed against a pedestrian, Smt. Sagunabai Shamrao Jagdhane. The pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The First Respondent was chargesheeted in a disciplinary proceeding for misconduct falling under Standing Orders 25(g) and 25(y). Under Standing Order 25(g) misconduct consists of a habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual negligence. Under Standing Order 25(y) misconduct consists of a willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. A disciplinary enquiry was held during the course of which the First Respondent participated. Ultimately, upon the conclusion of the proceedings a penalty of a stoppage of five increments with permanent effect was imposed on the First Respondent. The First Respondent filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under items 5 and 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complaint was disposed of by the Industrial Court by its order dated 30th September, 1996.

(2.) The Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had indulged in an unfair labour practice in awarding punishment to the First Respondent of a stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect. The punishment which has been imposed on the First Respondent has been set aside. The order passed by the Industrial Court principally relies upon a report submitted by an employee of the Petitioner Mr. Dattatraya M. Hole, who at the material time was working as an incharge of the Accident Section. The aforesaid employee had submitted a report after he had visited the site on receipt of information at 2.45 p.m. on 3rd November, 1986 about the accident. The report was to the effect that while the bus was being taken in the reverse gear, all the passengers had not yet alighted. The conductor had not ascertained as to whether any person was immediately behind the bus. According to the report, the accident took place because the conductor had not taken necessary steps to ascertain whether the path of the bus in the reverse gear was free of any human obstruction. Relying on this report, the Industrial Court held that it was the duty of the conductor to see that all the passengers in the bus had alighted before the bus was taken in reverse gear and to observe whether anyone was in the path of the bus. According to the Industrial Court it was only thereafter that the conductor should have used the bell situated within the bus for guiding the bus driver. It is on this basis that the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the First Respondent was guilty of misconduct.

(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner it has been urged that the order passed by the Industrial Court suffers from a clear perversity since it was primarily the duty of the First Respondent who was driving the bus to ensure the safety of all persons in the vicinity of the bus while it was being taken in the reverse gear. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the preliminary statement of the First Respondent dated 3rd November, 1986 which shows that the First Respondent had entirely relied upon the ringing tone of the bell of the bus implying thereby that the First Respondent has not used his own discretion. Referring to the examination of the First Respondent in the course of evidence, learned counsel submitted that a clear effort was made by the First Respondent to improve his case. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the First Respondent has supported the reasoning of the Industrial Court.