1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.228 OF 2002 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Mr.Dattatraya Dnyanu Shinde & ors. ...Respondents. AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.229 OF 2002 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Mr.Sampat Rajaram Dhabugade & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.M.S.Topkar, for Petitioner. None for Respondents --- 2 CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- 1. In both the Letters Patent Appeals, the appellant is the same, the respondents in both the appeals were in the employment of the appellant, therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. The respondent no.1 in both the appeals were in the employment of the appellant as driver. The respondent no.1 in Appeal no.81 of 2002 by name Mr.Sampat R.Dhabugade was incharge of motor vehicle. He handed over that motor vehicle to respondent no.1 in Appeal no.80 of 2002 by name Mr.Dattatraya D.Shinde knowing that Mr.Shinde is under the influence of liquor. While driving that vehicle Mr.Shinde caused an accident. A departmental inquiry was held, charges against both the respondents were found to have been proved and therefore, both of them 3 have been dismissed from the service. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court by filing complaint under the Unfair Labour Practices Act. The Labour Court held that the inquiry was fair and proper and the misconduct has also been proved. The Labour Court, however, found that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the workmen is harsh and therefore, they were directed to be reinstated in service but without backwages. Both the orders were challenged before the Industrial Court by the appellant. The Industrial Court agreed with the Labour Court findings and dismissed the Revision applications. Two writ petitions were filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 17.1.2002. The appellant, therefore, is in appeal against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge. 4 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant is that considering the nature of misconduct namely (1) driving a motor vehicle belonging to his employer after consuming liquor and (2) handing over vehicle of his employer to a person knowingly that that person is under the influence of liquor, which is of extremely serious nature, the Courts below were not justified in interfering with the punishment awarded. The learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the misconduct is not of such serious nature which warrants punishment of dismissal, is incapable of being accepted because the misconduct of a driver of driving a vehicle under the influence of liquor, is misconduct of very serious nature. The learned Counsel further submits that so far as Mr.Shinde is concerned, the Industrial Court has wrongly considered that he was in service for a period of 25 years when in fact he was in service only for five-six years. The learned Counsel submits that considering the Law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time in 5 relation to the power of the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment imposed, specially when the misconduct is of serious nature, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the employer after finding that the misconduct has been proved. 4. None appears for respondents though served. With the help of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, we have gone through the record. The record clearly shows that in the departmental inquiry, the misconduct has been held to have been proved. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court have held that the inquiry was fair and proper, they have also held that the allegation of misconduct levelled against the workmen has been proved and that the finding of the inquiry officer in relation to finding workmen guilty are not perverse or improper. In this background, therefore, in our opinion, considering the nature of misconduct namely driving of vehicle belonging to the employer while being under the influence of liquor and 6 other of handing over vehicle, of which he is incharge, to a person knowing that that person is under the influence of liquor, is of very serious nature. In our opinion, therefore, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the punishment imposed. In our opinion, the Industrial Court was not justified in observing that the standard of services which are expected from the driver in private employment, cannot be expected from the driver working in public undertaking. In our opinion, the decree of care should be the same. The job of driver is of responsibility, and therefore, in our opinion, there was no room to interfere with the punishment imposed after having found that the guilt has been proved. In our opinion, considering that the service rendered by the workman Mr.Shinde was only of six years and by Mr.Dhabugade was only of 7 years, the Court was not justified in directing their reinstatement. In any case, because of the interim order passed throughout during the pendency of the proceedings, the order of reinstatement has not 7 taken effect. 5. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement in service is set aside. The complaints filed by both the workmen in the Labour Court are dismissed. The orders passed by the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court are set aside. Both the appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2002 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2002 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar 8 Karkhana Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Mr.Dattatraya Dnyanu Shinde & ors. ...Respondents. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2002 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 OF 2002 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Mr.Sampat Rajaram Dhabugade & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.M.S.Topkar, for Petitioner. None for Respondents CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- In view of the order passed today i.e. 9 9.4.2009 in LPA no.80 of 2002 and LPA no.81 of 2002, these civil applications do not survive for consideration, and are disposed of as such. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)