( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 593 OF 2002 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS Sarfraj Kha Maktumkha Pathan, R/o Chunarali, Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Vasant Yadav, advocate holding for Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 31st March, 2001 rendered by the learned ( 2 ) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, in reference application bearing IDA No. 5/1989 whereby and whereunder termination of the respondent was quashed and he was directed to be paid 25% of backwages from date of termination of the services until the date of superannuation. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was working as driver with the petitioner. He was appointed in 1970 and was working as such till the date of termination of the service. While he was driving S.T. Bus bearing registration No. MTB-5100 on Chopda-Jalgaon route, there took place collusion between the S.T. Bus driven by him and another bus bearing registration No. MTB-2294 which was being plied on Naygaon-Chopda route. In the course of such accident, 76 passengers were injured and three (3) of them had died. A departmental inquiry was held against the respondent. The Inquiry Officer noticed that there was sufficient material to reach conclusion that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the S.T. Bus by the respondent though it was a case of ( 3 ) composite negligence by both the drivers. The petitioner terminated services of the respondent on recommendation of the Inquiry Officer. 3. The respondent challenged the order of termination dated 18-01-1984 by filing complaint (ULP) No. 54/1986. The complaint application was dismissed on account of delay in filing of the complaint. The respondent thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 2017/1992. This Court directed to restore the reference (IDA) application No. 5/1989 and to decide the same afresh. 4. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was dismissed without justification. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent proved that the order of dismissal was unlawful and based on unacceptable evidence and, therefore, perverse. By the time, the Reference was decided, the respondent had attained age of superannuation and, therefore, the relief was moulded in ( 4 ) the manner as indicated hereinbefore. The petitioner has come out with a case that the inquiry report was based on sufficient material and, therefore, termination of the services of the respondent is quite justified. The petitioner alleges that without there being any proof about non-employment of the respondent during relevant period, the backwages to the extent of 25% could not have been awarded by the Labour Court. The petitioner questions legality and propriety of the impugned judgement and would submit that the findings of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court are based on surmises. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 6. Before I proceed to consider merits of the matter, let it be noted that the fact situation preceding dismissal of the respondent is rather uncontroverted. Admittedly, he was driver of the S.T. bus bearing registration No. MTB-5100. The procedural part of the inquiry reveals that due steps were taken by ( 5 ) the Inquiry Officer. The respondent sought exoneration on the ground that he was acquitted of the criminal cases by the criminal Court. The impugned judgement shows that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court stamped the dismissal of the respondent as “unjustified” because the aspects regarding speed of both the buses and the conduct of the respondent was not considered by the Inquiry Officer. In other words, the learned Presiding Officer practically considered the Reference like an appellate authority. 7. The powers of the Labour Court are envisaged under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is useful to reproduce the relevant provision as shown below : “11-A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. - Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been ( 6 ) referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.” A plain reading of the above provision would make it manifest that the Labour Court is entitled to adjudicate the dispute when there is satisfactory material to show that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. Thus, satisfaction of the Labour Court is a sine qua non for causing interference in the order of dismissal or discharge. The satisfaction of the Labour ( 7 ) Court must be based on sufficient material and should not be of illusory character. 8. Significantly, the evidence tendered before the Inquiry Officer comprised of the statement of conductor of the another S.T. Bus bearing registration No. MTB-2294. His version indicated that both the S.T. Bus vehicles were being driven in high speed. The Inquiry Officer also considered recitals of the spot panchanama dated 05-11-1981. The panchanama revealed that both the buses had head-on collusion. Both the heavy vehicles were materially damaged due to the accident. Obviously, it is a case wherein principle of “res ipsa loquitur” is attracted. The informant – PW Deshmukh was also examined during course of the inquiry. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court considered certain admissions of PW Deshmukh while reaching the conclusion that negligence could not be attributed to the respondent. The admissions did not, however, blow up the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the S.T. bus by the respondent. The learned Presiding Officer of the ( 8 ) Labour Court noticed that conductor of the S.T. bus bearing registration No. MTB-5100 was not examined during the inquiry. Even so, his statement during the preliminary inquiry has been considered by the learned Presiding Officer. The findings of the Inquiry Officer could not be upsetted without there being satisfactory explanation on part of the respondent. The respondent did not prove that he took sufficient care while driving the S.T. Bus at the material time. He did not prove that he had taken appropriate last minute decision to turn the vehicle towards extreme left side of the road so as to avert the accident. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court should not have overlooked the fact that without contribution of the negligence by the respondent, such colossal loss due to the accident could not have occurred. The safety of the passengers is at perils when the negligent drivers are allowed to go scot-free. 9. Considering the tale-telling circumstances and by applying principle of “res ipsa loquitur”, I have no hesitation to hold that the conclusions drawn by the ( 9 ) learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court are based on conjectures and surmises. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 10. In view of disposal of writ petition, civil applications No. 4045/2004 and 7740/2008 do not survive and hence, stand disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP593-02