1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3642 of 2005 (Ambelal Girdhar Mankar through L.Rs. Vs. M.S.R.T.C. Bhandara and ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.C.R. Mishra, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Mehadia, Adv. For respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 4 th December, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour Court, Bhandara, on 10/8/2004, in Complaint (ULP) No. 183/1993 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal dated 16/7/1993, as also that of the Industrial Court, Bhandara dated 21/2/2005 in Revision (ULPA) No. 3/2005 confirming the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 10/8/2004. 2 Though the petitioner had collected the fares from the passengers traveling from Kosamtondi to Sakoli, the petitioner, Bus Conductor, had not issued the tickets to those passengers. The petitioner was also found to possess cash of Rs. 25/- about which he was unable to explain. The explanation given by the petitioner for non-issuance of the tickets to the passengers and for possessing excess cash, was unsatisfactory as it was the defence of the petitioner that due to the jerk to the bus his punch and tray fell down and he was unable to issue the tickets to the passengers. After holding the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 16/7/1993. After considering the evidence and the material on record, the Labour Court, 3 Bhandara, held that it was not a case of no evidence and, therefore, there was no fault with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty. The Labour Court, Bhandara, found that there was sufficient material in the form of the evidence of the checking staff, the statements of passengers to whom the tickets were not issued, as also the statement of the petitioner recorded on the spot, to hold that the petitioner did not issue the tickets to the passengers even after receiving the fares from the passengers. The Default Card produced on record clearly showed that a fine of Rs. 10/- was imposed on the petitioner on three occasions, his probation was extended on two occasions and on five earlier occasions, his annual increments were withheld for misconduct of the petitioner. Since the past service record of the petitioner 4 was not satisfactory, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner as he has failed to improve himself even after imposing various punishments for past 10 years. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the point of the punishment were also proper. The order passed by the Labour Court, Bhandara was confirmed by the Industrial Court in the revision filed by the petitioner. On a perusal of both the orders, it is clear that the Courts committed no fault in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The findings recorded by both the Courts are concurrent and this Court would not like to interfere with them in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgments reported 5 in 1976 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 386, 1999 Supreme Court Case (L & S) 429, 1995 II L.LN. 720 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular issued by the Corporation on 03.12.2005 is also not well founded as this Court has, in the judgment reported in 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 208, held that the circular cannot be read as conferring of vested right on any employee involved in misappropriation of funds to reinstatement in service despite imposition of penalty in a Departmental Enquiry. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP