- (1.)By way of present petition, the petitioner / Corporation challenges the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad, vide order dated 11th May 2000 in Complaint (ULP) No. 110/1993, and the order dated 1st October 2001 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Revision (ULP) No. 63/2000.
(2.)The respondent / employee who was in the services of the petitioner / Corporation, was charged with misconduct. The misconduct alleged was that the respondent / employee had collected the luggage fare and misappropriated the same. The second charge was that two passengers were issued tickets of lower denominations. After conducting enquiry, the departmental authority imposed punishment of dismissal. The same was challenged by the respondent by filing a complaint before the learned Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the said Complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 110/1993 and directed reinstatement of the respondent / employee in service with continuity of service. However, the claim of back wages was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner / Corporation went in revision. The revision came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
(3.)Mr. A.R. Salve, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / Corporation, submits that the courts below have grossly erred in not taking into consideration past conduct of the respondent / employee. He submits that the respondent / employee was habitual offender and as such, learned courts below ought not to have allowed the complaint and dismissed the revision.