DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC SOLAPUR Vs. RAJJAK ABBAS SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a statutory corporation established under the bombay Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, engaged, inter alia, in the activity of transporting passengers from one destination to another has filed this petition, being aggrieved by the award and order dated 6th July 1992 passed by the labour court, Solapur directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 workman with 50% backwages. The facts of the petition are as follows :

(2.) THE respondent workman was employed by the petitioner corporation in 1975 as a Driver. He was charge sheeted and dismissed from employment after holding a domestic enquiry in accordance with the rules framed by the petitioner. The show cause notice which was issued to the respondent workman was for his absence from duty with effect from 28. 11. 1984 to 30. 11. 1984 ;1. 12. 1984 to6. 12. 1984 and 12. 12. 1984 to 16. 1. 1985 without prior notice, information and permission. He did not take part in the domestic enquiry also, and therefore, the petitioner was compelled to hold the enquiry ex parte in the absence of the respondent workman. After the dismissal, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court. The labour court found the order of dismissal not proper and legal and held that the extreme punishment of dismissal for the period of absence was shockingly disproportionate and, therefore, quashed and set aside the order of dismissal directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with 50% back wages.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said order challenged the same under article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is clear from the record that the interim stay of the order impugned herein was not granted and Rule was issued only on the question of backwages. In view of rule being restricted only to the question of backwages, the order of reinstatement has been given effect to by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the respondent workman is presently working with the petitioner corporation.