1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1831 OF 2003 Vishwanath A. Suryawanshi. ...Petitioner. Vs. Divisional Traffic Supdt. MSRTC & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. G.S. Hegde for the Respondents. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 22, 2008. P.C.: These proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Industrial Court on 11th February 2002, reversing the judgment of the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Petitioner was working as a conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. A chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner on an allegation of misconduct to the effect that on 4th February 1992, he was on duty, as conductor, on a bus plying from Akkalkot to Pune. On the bus being checked by the checking squad at Temburni, it was found that the Petitioner had 2 received the full amount of the fare from one passenger for the journey from Akkalkot to Pune, but had issued a ticket only for the length of the journey from Akkalkot to Solapur. Thereby, it is alleged that the Petitioner had committed misconduct inter alia under clause 7 (b) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations. The misconduct therein lies in issuing a ticket for an amount less than what is tendered by the passenger. The disciplinary enquiry which was instituted against the Petitioner resulted in a finding of misconduct following which the Petitioner was dismissed from service from 22nd February 1992. The Petitioner instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court in its judgment noted that while the Petitioner issued a ticket in the denomination of Rs.10/- to the passenger concerned, for the journey between Akkalkot and Solapur, he had, as a matter of fact, misappropriated an amount of Rs.56 since he had received the full amount of the fare from Akkalkot to Pune. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper and was consistent with the principles of natural justice. 3 The Labour Court held that the charges under clause 7(b) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations were duly proved. However, the Labour Court held that the punishment which was imposed was disproportionate considering that the charge proved was under Clause 7(b) and the past record showed two minor misconducts. An order of reinstatement was passed with 20% back wages. On revision, the Industrial Court held that once the Labour Court had found that the charge of not issuing a ticket of the denomination for the amount tendered by the passenger was proved, the interference of the Labour Court with a penalty was not called for. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court in revision, an order was passed on 1st August 1995 staying the order of the Labour Court only to the extent of back wages. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the petition to the effect that the Industrial Court had passed an interim order staying the payment of back wages and that while the revision application was pending, the 4 Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. Hence, it has been urged that the Petitioner continued to work until he attained the age of retirement during the pendency of the revision petition. The order which has been passed by the Industrial Court cannot be faulted. It must be noted that even the Labour Court which passed an order of reinstatement with a component of back wages, observed that the charge against the Petitioner under clause 7(b) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations was established. The charge was of a serious nature and the allegation which has been proved is that the workman had issued a ticket of a lower denomination covering only a part of the journey to a passenger who had tendered a larger amount for the entire length of journey from Akkalkot to Pune. The Petitioner issued a ticket only of Rs.10/- for the journey from Akkalkot to Solapur and thereby misappropriated the rest of the amount. Though the charge was of a serious nature of misappropriating the monies of the Corporation, the Labour Court interfered with the penalty, on the specious ground that the penalty 5 was disproportionate. This aspect of the reasoning was correctly interfered with by the Industrial Court for justifiable reasons. The penalty imposed can, by no stretch of imagination, be regarded as disproportionate. The situation which now emerged before the Court is that the Petitioner, as the Court has been informed by the Learned Counsel, has retired from service after the Industrial Court had stayed the order of the Labour Court only to the extent of back wages. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that as a result, the Petitioner continued to work and retired during the pendency of the revision before the Industrial Court. In this view of the matter, it would be necessary to clarify that for the purposes of computing the terminal benefits of the workman, the period for which the Petitioner had actually worked, will be taken into reckoning. In so far as the payment of back wages is concerned, the order of the Industrial Court is correct and does not warrant any interference. Both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were justified in holding that the charge of misconduct was proved. The Labour Court was in error in interfering with the penalty on the ground that it was disproportionate. The Industrial Court has allowed the revision and 6 set aside the order of the Labour Court for valid and justifiable reasons. However, for the reasons already indicated hereinabove, and since the Court has been informed that the Petitioner worked during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court until the date of superannuation, the actual period for which he has worked shall be taken into reckoning in computing the terminal dues. The petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall no no order as to costs. ........