1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4214 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar. PETITIONER -VERSUS- Namdeo Rangnath Nagre, Age : major, occupation Ex-conductor, R/o Walunj Poi, Post Manjri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Anjanvatikar holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 1st April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-State Road Transport Corporation has assailed the Part-II Award delivered by Presiding Officer, Ist Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No. 318 of 1994. The Labour Court answered reference in affirmative partly and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post as conductor with continuity of service, but it awarded him 1/3rd back wages for the period from 01.10.1994 till 29.02.1997. This Court had initially granted interim relief but later 2 on because of provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner reinstated the respondent back in service. During hearing the copy of No Demand Certificate is produced by respondent before this Court to show that the respondent attended age of superannuation on 31.08.1999. 2. Advocate Mr. Goyanka for petitioner has contended that misconduct established is of grave and serious nature in as much as in way bill submitted at the end of duty, particular number was disclosed as closing number and in another way bill taken for next duty on next day, instead of disclosing serial number of next ticket of that denomination, the earlier number was disclosed. In view of this position, it became clear that tickets sold in earlier trip were reissued by respondent thereby causing loss of revenue to petitioner. He contends that past service record of the respondent is also unsatisfactory and hence punishment of dismissal should not have been interfered with. 3. Advocate Mr. V.B. Anjanvatikar holding for Mr. V.D. Hon has produced the above mentioned No Demand Certificate to urge that the respondent has retired on 31.08.1999, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction at such belated stage. He points out that the misconduct has not been established and it was only the 3 inference drawn on the basis of which the disciplinary action was taken against the respondent. 4. Perusal of the records reveal that the respondent had joined the service as conductor on 02.08.1966 and he was served with charge sheet on 14.10.1988. After completion of the departmental enquiry he was dismissed on 26.12.1989. A reference was then made under Section 10(1) r/w Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 about correctness or legality of that dismissal. The Labour Court vide its Part-I Award found departmental enquiry to be fair and proper. However, it appears that it then did not decide the issue of perversity findings of Enquiry Officer as part of preliminary issue as required by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "AIR 1996 S.C. 1556" (Bharat Forge Company Ltd., V/s A.B. Zodge and another). The said aspect has been looked into in Award Part-II impugned before this Court. 5. It then found that the respondent was not caught raid handed while on duty but alleged misconduct was noticed by Issue Clerk. On 20th September, 1988 respondent submitted way bill mentioning ticket number 748046 as closing number for sale of ticket of denomination of 75 naya paisa. That way bill reveals that he had sold six tickets of that denomination. On 22.09.1988, he 4 took another way bill and in it the opening number of ticket of denomination of 75 paise was shown as 748040. Thus though tickets having serial numbers 748040 to 748046 were already sold on 20th September, 1988, he again shown sale of those tickets on 22.09.1988. Because of this inference has been drawn that those six tickets earlier sold were collected back from passengers by him and then he reissued those tickets on 22.09.1988. Labour Court has found that this was only an inference drawn and there was actually no other material to substantiate this. It found that the explanation submitted by the respondent was loss of his spectacle, and therefore, writting figure six like `0' through oversight. As the inference of such sale has been drawn because of the entires in the way bill and there was no other material, the Labour Court found findings of Enquiry Officer unsustainable but then it has not granted employee back wages from 26.12.1989. He has been denied back wages from 26.12.1989 till 01.10.1994 and for a period from 01.10.1994 till 29.02.1997, he has been given only 1/3rd back wages. Thus 2/3rd back wages are again denied to him. 6. It is to be noted that the Issue Clerk carries with him independently ticket numbers and also the entires of opening and closing. The account thereof apparent from sale could have been then looked into as supporting material to demonstrate that infact 5 on 22.09.1988, six more tickets were sold. The Issue Clerk has not been examined and as there is no other material, I do not find anything perverse with the appreciation of controversy by the Labour Court. The petitioner also did not exercise his right to prove misconduct before the Labour Court and did not make any grudge about it. 7. The developments thereafter show that this Court on 07.10.1997 had passed the order under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on 03.08.1998 it was modified. The employee came to be reinstated with immediate effect. No Demand Certificate shows that he has superannuated on 31.08.1999. Taking over all view of the matter, I find that the respondent-employee has been sufficiently punished for his error. No case is made out warranting interference. Therefore, the Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp4214.97