MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD Vs. BALKISHAN CHORASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of order dated 11.10.96 (Annex. P/1) passed by the Industrial Court of M.P. Bench Gwalior and dismissal of the application for reinstatement filed by respondent (Annex. P/2).

(2.) THE claim of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 was employed as a driver with the petitioners. On 15.2.1979, he was carrying a Barat in the bus of the Corporation from Gwalior to Porsa. He was required to leave the Barat Party at Porsa and to bring the bus back. After leaving the Barat party at Porsa and while he was returning, he illegally boarded 21 passengers without any charge and obtained fare from them. These passengers boarded from different places. Thus, he committed a major misconduct. Admittedly, enquiry was held. Charges were proved and by order dated 5.8.1981, he was dismissed from service. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under sections 31, 61 and 62 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act vide Annex. P/2. The petition was contested and the learned Labour Court quashed the proceedings of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 17.6.1985 and the petitioners were directed to lead evidence on the question of mis -conduct. Thereafter vide order dated 29.11.1986, the Labour Court dismissed the application for reinstatement vide Annexure P/41. An appeal was preferred before the Industrial Court against the said order, which was allowed by the order dated 11.10.96. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued vehemently that the Industrial Court committed an error in setting aside the cogent reasons given by the Labour Court. The learned counsel urged that there was a specific finding that while the bus in question was being driven by respondent No. 1, 21 passengers were found by the checking staff to be travelling in the bus without, tickets. Respondent No. 1 committed grave misconduct and this fact has specifically been proved, which could not be interfered with.