VAIDYANATH Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BAIRAGARH BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge an order of the State Industrial Court passed on 25th October 1971, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under section 66 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a conductor by the Madhya Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation. On 30th December 1969 he was given a charge-sheet alleging that he had carried ten passengers without ticket on rewa- Shadow route on 22nd August 1969. The charges levelled against the petitioner were : (i) that by not issuing tickets to the passengers the petitioner had caused financial loss to the Corporation to the extent of the fare payable by the passengers; (ii) that the petitioner himself recovered the fare from the passenger and misappropriated the same; (iii) that the petitioner disobeyed the orders of the Corporation ; and (iv) that the petitioner contravened sec tion 4 of the Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Act. In a domestic inquiry held in accordance with the Standing Orders, the petitioner was found guilty and was dismissed from service on 13th March 1970. The petitioner then, after giving usual approach notice, applied under section 31 (3) of the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, to the Labour Court for setting aside the order of dismissal and for his reinstatement. The Labour Court, by its order dated 11th December 1970, dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the domestic inquiry was proper and no ground was made out for interference with the order of dismissal. A revision was then filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court which, as already stated, was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 25th October 1971. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed in this Court.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, it is open to the Labour Court to look into the merits of the findings reached in the domestic inquiry and to set aside the order of dismissal, if it takes a different view on the evidence produced in the inquiry. It is also contended that the Labour Court can also interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry, if in its opinion the punishment imposed is severe. Learned counsel has argued that the powers of the Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Act are wider than the powers of the Labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood before the amending act 45 of 1971, and that the decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down that the Labour Court functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act did not sit as an appellate tribunal in deciding an industrial dispute relating to dismissal and its powers were limited, cannot be applied under the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Act.