IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4920 OF PETITION NO. 4920 OF PETITION NO. 4920 OF 1994 . . . M.S.R.T.Corporation ... Petitioner. V/s. Yeshwant Mahadeo Bhilare ... Respondents. Shri G.S. Hegde for the petitioner. Shri T.R.Yadav for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 20.3.2006. : 20.3.2006. : 20.3.2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard rival parties. . Perused petition. . This petition is directed against the order dated 10.1.1994 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane, in Revision Application No. (ULP) No. 2 of 1989, confirming the order dated 5.12.1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 63/1984, by which petitioner-Corporation was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 to the post of Conductor from 23.1.1984 with full backwages from 13.8.1983 to 1.1.1985. . The factual matrix reveals that respondent No.1 was in the service of the petitioner- Corporation as a Conductor, in its Divisional office at Thane. The bus was checked and respondent No.1- workman was found in possession of punched tickets. Hence, show cause notice was issued on 12.3.1983 and a charge sheet was served on the respondent by the petitioner-Corporation on 16.3.1983. . A departmental enquiry was initiated against respondent No.1-workman. The charges levelled against him were investigated by the Enquiry Officer. It was found that all the charges were proved against the workman. Consequently, respondent No.1 came to be dismissed from the service by order dated 13.8.1983. . Respondent No.1-workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed on 21.11.1983. A second appeal was also preferred before the Appellate Authority which also came to be dismissed ion 23.1.2004. . It appears that respondent No.1 after having lost in the 2nd appeal, filed a Complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 63 of 1984 in the 2nd Labour Court, Thane. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, after hearing the parties was pleased to hold that order of dismissal was by way of victimisation and that the power of dismissal was not exercised in good faith but it was in colourable exercise. The Labour Court therefore, quashed and set aside the impugned order. . The issue which was framed by the Labour Court was: whether the workman proves that misconduct was minor or technical character without having any regard to the nature of particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee, so as to prove that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. . The Labour Court, ultimately, directed reinstatement of workman with backwages as stated hereinabove. . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, jurisdiction of the Industrial Court was invoked by the petitioner-,Corporation. However, submissions advanced by the petitioner-Corporation did not find favour with the Industrial Court and revision came to be dismissed. . Having heard rival parties, both the parties submitted that pursuant to the order of the Courts below, respondent No.1 -workman has already been reinstated and since then he is working with the petitioner-Corporation. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that misconduct enumerated under Clause 12(b) is of serious nature. As such, respondent N.1-workman would not be entitled to reinstatement or at any rate, with full backwages. . Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-workman while refuting aforesaid submission, considering the fact that he was reinstated and there is no serious challenge to the order of reinstatement, he submits that this Court may exercise discretion to curtail some backwages, so as to do justice between the parties. . In the light of the above rival submissions made, considering nature of misconduct and to put an end to the litigation and to harmonize industrial relation, it would be reasonable to award 25% backwages from 1.1.1985 till date of reinstatement. . Amount of backwages to be paid within 8 weeks from today. In the event of failure on the petitioner to pay backwages, the amount shall carry interest at 10% p.a. . Petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)