1 W.P.No.1346/97 UNREPROTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1346 OF 1997. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus Dagadu S/o Shankar Patil, Age major, Occ.Service, R/o Satgaon Dongari, Tq.Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... Mr.M.K.Goyanka, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.Y.Patil, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.1346/97 2. The present Respondent was appointed as a driver by the present petitioner in the year 1979. The present petitioner terminated the Respondent on 2nd October, 1985, after holding departmental inquiry on the ground that the petitioner had consumed alcohol when he was on duty and tried to outrage modesty of two lady passengers who were sleeping on the Bus-stand. 3. The Respondent challenged the said order of termination by filing a complaint (ULP) No.75/1987 before the Labour Court, Jalgaon. The present petitioner resisted the said complaint by filing written statement. The Labour Court vide its judgment and order dated 20.7.1992, directed the petitioner to reinstate the present Respondent in service without back wages. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a Revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the Revision and confirmed the finding and judgment of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to pay back wages from the date of order of the Labour Court till reinstatement. 3 W.P.No.1346/97 Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr.Goyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent was rightly terminated. The charges against the present Respondent were grave and were involving moral turpitude. Just because the present petitioner could not adduce any evidence that could not have been the sole ground for Labour Court to decide in favour of the present Respondent. According to the learned counsel, even the Labour Court had decided that the principles of natural justice were followed while conducting the inquiry. When the Labour Court came to this conclusion then the Labour Court should not have interfered with the decision taken by the Corporation. 5. The Court had earlier decided by order dated 29.4.1991, the preliminary issues and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that only charge against indiscipline was proved during the inquiry and other charges were not proved. 4 W.P.No.1346/97 5. The Labour Court vide order dated 29.4.1991 had categorically held that the charges against the present Respondent were not proved except that of indiscipline. The present petitioner also did not lead any evidence to controvert the case of the present Respondent. It is observed by the Industrial Court that the present petitioner did not desire to lead further evidence. Only on the ground of indiscipline, the punishment awarded that is of termination was disproportionate. The Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness is substituted by the doctrine of proportionality. The Labour Court has considered that it was disproportionate to terminate the services of the present Respondent only on the ground of charge No.10 that of indiscipline when other charges were negatived by the Court. Even the Industrial Court has considered all these aspects, the back wages has been denied to the present Respondent i.e. back wages from the date of termination till the date of judgment of the Labour Court. 5 W.P.No.1346/97 6. The orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Respondent was reinstated as no interim orders were passed by this Court. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for Respondent submits that the Respondent has attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp134697