1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1814 OF 1999 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioners v/s Mr.Bhagwan Ganpati Kshirsagar ... Respondent Mr.G.S.Karmalkar i/by Mr.G.S.Hegde for petitioners. Mr.Snehal Ratnakar h/for Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the award passed by the Labour Court, Solapur, on 2.9.1998. The Labour Court has allowed the reference by directing the petitioners to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back wages. 2. On 19.11.1984, the respondent was on duty in a bus which had journeyed for eight trips. However, the 2 respondent who was the conductor on the bus, recorded that only six trips were undertaken by the bus. Entries of the sale of some tickets were not shown by the respondent in the way- bill. He did not sign the way-bill after verifying the accounts. A charge-sheet was therefore issued to the respondent on 12.1.1985. An enquiry was conducted against him and when the enquiry officer found him guilty of the alleged acts of misconduct, he was dismissed from service with effect from 3.7.1985. The respondent preferred departmental appeals which were dismissed. He therefore raised an industrial dispute which was preferred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Solapur, in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 1988. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award by concluding that the enquiry held against the respondent was fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were not perverse. It therefore concluded that the respondent had indulged in the acts of misconduct alleged against him. However, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. The Labour Court while considering the past service record observed that although the respondent had been charge-sheeted earlier for various acts of misconduct, he was subsequently reinstated. The 3 Court also observed that the respondent had been punished for various acts of misconduct in the past, he had not committed an act of misconduct similar to the one for which he was charged in the present instance. It held that a lenient view ought to be taken by the management as it had in the past. 3. Mr.Karmalkar appearing for the petitioners vehemently urges that the Labour Court has committed a grave error by directing reinstatement with continuity of service in favour of the respondent. He submits that, when a serious charge of making wrong entries in the records regarding the tickets issued as well as the number of trips undertaken by the bus, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the reference. He submits that when the charge of such a serious nature has been proved, the Labour Court ought not to have granted any reinstatement. 4. Ms Ratnakar appearing for the respondent submitted that a possible view has been taken by the Labour Court which need not be interfered by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. She submits that the Labour Court on appreciating the evidence placed before it, was of the view that the past service record of the respondent was not 4 blameworthy enough to dismiss the workman. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the dismissal order was too harsh and has exercised declaration under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. On considering the submissions of the learned advocates, in my opinion, the Labour Court has committed an error by awarding reinstatement to the workman. The workman has been dishonest in recording the trips made by him as a conductor with the bus. He has also been dishonest in recording the number of tickets sold by him in the way-bill. In these circumstances, the Labour Court was not right in reinstating the respondent. The Labour Court has recorded the fact that these acts of misconduct were not committed on an isolated occasion. He had been charge-sheeted and penalized for various acts of misconduct. In fact, he was dismissed from service on 1.3.1983 and subsequently was reappointed in service after an order was passed by the Appellate Authority. Within a year from his reappointment in service the respondent had committed these serious acts of misconduct. In my opinion, the Labour Court has erred in granting such a person reinstatement in service. Considering the fact that the misconduct has been proved and the Labour Court has accepted this finding of the enquiry 5 officer, it ought not to have directed the reinstatement in service in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Further more, a person who has indulged in acts of misconduct immediately on his reappointment in service does not deserve any leniency and the petitioners had rightly dismissed him. 6. In the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Labour Court has completely erred in setting aside the order of dismissal and by allowing the reference partly. 7. The award of the Labour Court dated 2.9.1998 is set aside. The reference is rejected. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. ..... 6