1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6714 OF 1998 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn .. Petitioner Vs Shri. Jaysingh B. Sawant .. Respondent Mr. G.A. Karmarkar i/b Mr. G.S. Hegde for the Petitioner Mr. Amol B. Desai i/b S.S. Sawant & A.K. Jalisatgi for the Respondent Coram : S.A. Bobde, J. Date : 17th March, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24th June, 1998 passed by IVth Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Respondent's service with continuity of service and back wages. As of now, there is no dispute that the Respondent has reinstated under orders of this Court and has also reached the age of superannuation. Rma WP3809298170309.sxw 2 2. Shri. Karmakar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement on the ground that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate since it had been established that the Respondent had made payment of 65 tickets instead of 101 tickets of Rs. 4/- denominations. According to the learned counsel, the Respondent ought to have known that he had sold 101 tickets and that therefore, he was making payment only on the basis of 65 tickets. 3. It however, appears that the finding of the Labour Court that the Respondent was not entirely responsible for the event and that it may be a genuine mistake is plausible. 4. Apparently, the clerk who prepared the way-bill extract for the month of October 1993 had wrongly mentioned the opening ticket no. 585184 instead of 585148. Accordingly, on his returned Rma WP3809298170309.sxw 3 from the trip, the conductor referred to the way-bill extract as above and made payment of 65 tickets instead of 101 tickets. 5. There is no dispute that the clerk had prepared the said way- bill extract and that in inquiry, he was let of with a minor punishment. 6. On appreciating all the evidence, the Labour Court come to the conclusion that the Respondent may have committed a genuine mistake which was induced by the clerk and Respondent could not checked the mistake because he was assigned double duty. The Labour Court has further observed that the Respondent's version of what happened remained unchallenged in cross-examination and therefore, Respondent's case remained un-rebutted. In fact, the Labour Court has observed that the Inquiry Officer has punished the Respondent on account of past misconduct. In the circumstances, the view of the Labour Rma WP3809298170309.sxw 4 Court that the mistake was joint mistake of clerk and the Respondent, may not have had any intention to misappropriate the amount is a reasonable view. 7. It is settled law that merely because two views are possible, this Court should not interfere with a view that is taken unless is not supported by any evidence or is vitiated by perversity. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition. The Petition is liable to be dismissed. Rule discharged. 8. Order accordingly. (S.A. Bobde, J) Rma WP3809298170309.sxw