THE DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT (DEFAULT), MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SHRI SURYAKANT NARAYAN CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision by an employer -Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenging legality of judgment and order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 288/90 by the Labour Court, Sangli, whereby the employer is directed to reinstate his employee conductor with continuity of service and back wages by permitting imposition of punishment other than of dismissal. Admittedly, present Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) joined present petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Corporation) as a conductor from 1st November 1971. He was on duty on 10th May 1989 on Sangli to Kolhapur route and then from Kolhapur to Sangli. Checking Squad checked his bus at Kolhapur Stand. The Squad then made a report on 10th May 1989 itself after recording statement of the Complainant. The Corporation then served chargesheet dated 26th May 1989. It was alleged that he committed misconducts under item 10 (indiscipline), 12(b) (fraud, dishonesty or misappropriation in connection with the business or property of the Corporation), 27 repeated or continued negligence or neglect of work and 35(B) (failure on the part of the conductor to maintain records in a proper manner). The factual allegations are (i) stating false closing numbers of the tickets despite issuance of more tickets and thereby an attempt to cheat the Corporation, (ii) detection of punched tickets in respect of journey between Sangli to Kolhapur and Jaysingpur to Kolhapur in the cash box so a to re -issue them in the journey from Kolhapur to Sangli, (iii) showing less sale off tickets in the way -bill with an intention to re -issue above used tickets, (iv) unauthorised possession of blank way -bill and (v) defect cash of Rs. 29.20.

(2.) THE Complainant denied the charges and then an enquiry took place. The Enquiry Officer on competition of enquiry found the Complainant guilty of all the charges. Ultimately, the Complainant was dismissed from service on 30th June, 1990.

(3.) IT is further case of the Complainant that chargesheet is full of mistakes and different ticket numbers were mentioned. Letter on chargesheet was amended illegally. In addition, principles of natural justice were not observed an and the enquiry is not fair.