:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport ] Corporation, having its office at ] Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg ] Bombay Central, Bombay 400 008 ]Petitioner versus 1. Shri Shankar Ukha Jadhav ] At PO : Khadakjamb, Taluka Chandvad ] District Nashik ] 2. Presiding Officer ] Industrial Court, Nashik ]Respondents Mr. G. A. Karmalkar i/b. Mr. G. S. Hegde for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Patil for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court dated 31.5.1997. The Industrial Court has reversed the Order of the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint of the respondent workman against his dismissal from service. The respondent No.1 was a :2: conductor of a bus which was on the route from Nandgaon to Manmad. In a bus which has a normal capacity of about 41 people, about 52 1/2 passengers were travelling at that time. 2 passengers with a child asked for issue of 2 1/2 tickets. The respondent no. 1 received a fare for those tickets i.e. Rs.7.50 paise and he returned Rs.2.50 paise from Rs.10/- which the passengers handed over. Apparently, he did not issue the tickets immediately but issued them after about three stages i.e. about 6 kms. When he was issuing the tickets the bus was checked by flying squad which found those 2 1/2 tickets in the respondent No.1’s hand as he was about to hand them over to the passengers. The flying squad recorded the statement of the respondent No.1 as well as the passengers. The respondent No.1 stated that he had forgotten to issue tickets due to the crowd in the bus. The passengers stated that they had handed over money earlier, but the respondent No.1 had delayed or avoided handing over tickets to them. The petitioner found the respondent No.1 guilty of misconduct and dismissed him. The respondent No.1 approached the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act and he prayed for a declaration of unfair labour practice under items (a) to (g) of Schedule IV of :3: the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court dismissed his complaint. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was properly conducted and observed that the respondent No. 1 was found guilty according to the charge sheet i.e. for not issuing tickets after receiving fare of Rs.7.50 paise from 2 1/2 passengers on Nandgaon Manmad route. The Labour Court found the charges established and dismissed the complaint. 3. In Revision, the Industrial Court however found that the respondent No.1 had merely forgotten to issue the tickets in the rush since there were about 52 passengers in the bus and accepted the contention of the respondent No. 1 that it was not a deliberate act. In fact, the Industrial Court noticed that in the charge sheet itself, the petitioner had stated that at the time of checking, the respondent No. 1 was in the process of issuing tickets and in fact had 2 1/2 unpunched tickets at that time. The Industrial Court found that it was not possible to attribute dishonesty to the respondent No.1 because the respondent No.1 had accepted the fare for tickets and had kept the amount of the fare in the S.T. cash bag and in all probabilities had no intention to dishonestly :4: misappropriate the amounts. 4. Mr. Karmalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court fell into an error in arriving at this finding of fact since the respondent had admitted his guilt before the flying squad. In the spot statement the passengers had also stated that the respondent No. 1 had deliberately not issued tickets. 5. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 however submitted that the learned Industrial Court has rendered the finding on the basis of not only proved facts but on the basis of facts according to the charge sheet. 6. Having considered the matter at length, it appears that there is no admission of guilt as alleged on the part of the petitioner. The statement shows that the respondent No.1 accepted the fact that he had received fare but had not issued the tickets immediately due to the heavy rush in the bus. This can hardly be said an admission of guilt of misappropriation. Moreover, the statement of the passenger also does not suggest a dishonest motive on the part of the respondent No.1 but the :5: passengers have stated that the respondent No. 1 delayed or avoided giving tickets immediately after receiving the fare. Above all this, it seems difficult to find fault with the learned Industrial Court for basing his finding on the fact that the petitioner had themselves mentioned in the charge sheet that the respondent No.1 was found handing over the unpunched tickets to the passengers when the flying squad inspected the bus. The Industrial Court has found that the contents of the charge sheet would make difficult to attribute dishonesty to the respondent No.1. It must be said that the view of the Industrial Court that the respondent No.1 did not act dishonestly with an intention to misappropriate the amount, is a highly plausible view on facts, particularly, since it is based on the charge sheet itself. Moreover the amount which the respondent No. 1 received was found in the S.T. cash bag and not elsewhere on his person. The Industrial Court has rightly observed that the Labour Court has completely missed that aspect of the charge sheet where the respondent No. 1 was actually handing over the tickets to the passengers at the time of visit of the flying squad. 7. In this view of the matter, and having :6: regard to the plausibility of the view taken by the Industrial Court, the Order of the Industrial Court does not call for any interference. It would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the view taken by the Industrial Court in the circumstances of the case. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)