1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3977 OF 2008 Ghanasham Pundalik Mhatre ..Petitioner. Vs. Navi Mumbai Municipal Transport Undertaking and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. R.V. Govilkar with Mr. Sarang Aradhye for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 26th June, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner was working with the Respondents as a conductor. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted into a charge of four alleged misconducts stated to have been committed on 3rd December, 1996, 5th July, 1997, 30th April, 1999 and 31st December, 1999. The gravamen of the allegations has been summarized in the order passed by the Labour Court and for convenience of reference it would suffice to provide an extract therefrom : “The first charge was that on 3rd December, 1996 at 2 about 9.25 a.m. when the complainant was on duty on bus no. 1446 on route no. 7 and his bus was checked at Juhu village, down route, the checking squad found two passengers without tickets. It is alleged that the complainant had recovered Rs.10/- towards fare but he did not issue tickets to them. Second charge was that on 5.7.97 when the complainant was on duty on route no.7 with bus no.1837 and his bus was checked at 22.10 hours, it was found that the complainant had punched tickets wrongly and his cash bag was found with excess amount of Rs.56.75 to which the complainant could not explain. Third charge was that on 30.4.99 when the complainant was on route no.7 and his bus was checked, the checking squad found 12 passengers travelling in the bus conducted by the complainant without tickets inspite of the fact that the complainant had collected Rs.40/- towards fare from them. His cash bag was also found with excess amount of Rs.26.50. The last charge levelled against the complainant was that on 31.12.99 the complainant was on duty on route no. 4 and the checking squad checked his bus. His cash bag was found with excess amount of Rs,.17.50 to which the complainant could not explain. It is also alleged that the complainant refused to give his spot statement.” 2. By an order dated 28th October, 2004 the Labour Court found that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were not perverse. The complaint of unfair labour practices was dismissed on 22nd November, 2005. The Industrial Court has confirmed the orders passed by the Labour Court. In the order of the Labour Court dated 28th October, 2004 there is a categoric 3 finding that the Petitioner had admitted the charges pertaining to his being found in possession of excess cash on 30th April, 1999 and that on 5th July, 1997 he had issued tickets which were wrongly punched and an amount of Rs.56.75 was found in excess. The relevant observations of the Labour Court read as follows : “The enquiry proceedings reveal that the complainant has admitted the charge that on 30.4.99 an amount of Rs.25.50p was found in excess and on enquiry the complainant replied that the said amount is towards the amount to be refunded to the passengers before the Enquiry Officer. Similarly, he admitted that on 5.7.97 he had issued tickets which were wrongly punched and amount of Rs.56.75 was found in excess with him in the cash bag, which he has admitted. He further clearly admitted that he had reissued the used punched tickets. Both these charges are voluntarily admitted by the complainant.” This has again been reiterated by the Labour Court in the subsequent order dated 22nd November, 2005. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner faintly attempted to argue that he has an explanation for this, but there is absolutely no valid explanation. The Petitioner has clearly admitted of being in possession of excess cash and of having issued used or punched tickets. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that none of the 4 passengers of the bus were examined. This submission cannot be accepted once the Petitioner had admitted the charge of misconduct. In these circumstances, the findings which were arrived at by the Courts below cannot be regarded as being in error. No case has been made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. The Petition is rejected. *****