1 W.P.No.4774.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4774 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Vahatuk Bhavan ... Petitioner v/s Shri Vijay Dattoba Dhekale ... Respondent Mr.G.S.Hegde i/by G.S.Hegde & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal C. Ghosalkar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court on 15.12.2009. By this order, the Revision Application filed by the respondent workman has been allowed. The Industrial Court has quashed the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1995. The Industrial Court has further observed that since the respondent workman had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007, he was being granted continuity of service 2 W.P.No.4774.10 notionally till that date from the date of his dismissal from service. A further direction to pay 30% of the back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation has also been given by the Industrial Court. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner, besides criticizing the impugned order on merits, takes exception to certain observations of the Industrial Court contained in the order. The Industrial Court has stated that the respondent workman had committed no error by remaining absent from duty because the workman felt that the order of demotion issued against him was perverse and illegal. The learned advocate urges that such an order would create indiscipline in the establishment of the petitioner. He also contends that, granting 30% of back wages to the respondent workman is unjustified. 3. I have perused both the orders, of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. Both the Courts below have found that the muster roll which was produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court showed interpolations. In fact, the letter “L” which shows that respondent workman was on leave, has been changed to the letter “A” indicating that he was absent from August, 1995. During the earlier 3 W.P.No.4774.10 period i.e. May, 1992 to July, 1994, he has been shown on leave without pay i.e. “LWP”. 4. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the workman was absent without permission for more than two years is unacceptable. His absence without leave appears to be only from June, 1995 as seen from the muster roll. The interpolations in the muster roll are apparent to the naked eye. Therefore, in my opinion, the Industrial Court has not committed any error by granting continuity of service with 30% back wages since the workman had reached the age of superannuation by then. 5. However, the observations of the Industrial Court contained in para 8 to the effect, “So far as just and reasonable cause for remaining absent is concerned, I am of the opinion that the applicant having demoted illegally which has been held by the Industrial Court, there was just and proper reason for the applicant to remain away from the duty”. These observations must be set aside. It is true that the workman had challenged the order of demotion in a complaint under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. He has succeeded in that complaint and the demotion has been set aside by the Industrial Court. However, an employee cannot 4 W.P.No.4774.10 remain absent only because he feels that an order passed by the employer is not justified. In this case, however, the workman had proceeded on leave which was sanctioned and, therefore, it was not as if he had remained absent without permission continuously for more than two years as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 5. The Labour Court has deprived the workman of 70% of the back wages which, in my opinion, is adequate punishment for his absence from June, 1995 to 28.8.1995 when he was dismissed. 6. Writ petition rejected. ..... 5 W.P.No.4774.10