MAHADEO SHRIPATI KHOT Vs. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT (DEFAULT), COMPETENT AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges a revisional order passed by the Industrial Court at Solapur. The Industrial Court was considering in the revision a reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court at Sangli in favour of the Petitioner herein, who was the original complainant before the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It was the case of the Petitioner, who was working as conductor with the Respondentcorporation that he was illegally terminated from service. The Labour Court partly allowed the Petitioner's complaint and granted him reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. That order was purportedly on the footing that though the Petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in a duly conducted enquiry, the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was disproportionate to the charges proved against him. The revisional court found that the misconduct was sufficiently serious and warranted the punishment of dismissal. It, accordingly, allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this court by the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was working with the Respondentcorporation since December 1988. On 31 October 1991, whilst he was on duty on a bus running from Subhash Nagar to Sangli Bus Stand, a passenger, who had boarded the bus at Ram Mandir Stop and who was to travel upto the last destination, i.e. Stangli Bus Stand, was found without ticket. The ticket checker formed an opinion that the passenger had paid the fare but was not issued ticket. The ticket, which was purportedly not issued, was of Rs.1.25. A chargesheet was thereupon given to the Petitioner and a departmental enquiry was held, in which he was found guilty of the charge of not issuing ticket despite collecting fare. The Petitioner was thereafter dismissed on the proven charge. The dismissal was challenged by the Petitioner before the Labour Court in the present complaint of unfair labour practice under Item1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

(3.) Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the Respondentcorporation, relies on disciplinary rules termed as 'Discipline & Appeal Procedure' of Maharashtra State Road Transport corporation ("D & A Procedure").