RAMDAS G PATIL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER BEST UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a conductor under the respondents Undertaking for a period of about seven years. On 29-12-1984 an incident took place in the Bus which he was conducting. It was alleged against him that he had assaulted a lady passenger viz. Smt. Ranjana S. Mane. A charge sheet was served on him on 4-3-1985 calling upon him to explain the charges. He, however, did not submit his written explanation to charges denying of explaining the incident. The respondent held a domestic enquiry and found him guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and finally he was dismissed from employment by an order dated 9-7-1985. Against the said order his internal appeal was also dismissed.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal he filed an application under section 79 r/w section 78 and 42 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to challenge the propriety and legality of the impugned dismissal order. At the first instance the Labour Court by its order dated 30-10-1993 set aside the dismissal order and directed the employee to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. I may mention here that the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper and that the findings were perverse. He held that the misconduct alleged against the employee was not proved and the findings of the Trying Officer (Enquiry Officer) were perverse, and therefore, the order of punishment of dismissal was not sustained by the Labour Court.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Industrial Court after hearing the parties held that the Labour Court had not decided properly the issue of findings of the Enquiry Officer and allowed the appeal by quashing and setting aside the order of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court was pleased to remand the matter back to the Labour Court for "reappreciation with a direction that the case be considered on the basis of the departmental proceedings and that it should not be decided on the basis of the criminal proceedings as the action taken by the Undertaking was a departmental action". Both the parties appear to have accepted the said judgment and order of the Industrial Court of remand of the matter to the Labour Court and they appeared before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after remand considering the order of the Industrial Court found that the Industrial Court had already found the employee guilty of the misconduct and therefore, there was nothing more to be decided and in view of the order of the Industrial Court the Labour Court had dismissed the application by his order dated 30-6-1995.