1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2002. Babu s/o Tukaram Kambale, age 52 years, occu. Service as Conductor in M.S.R.T.C., Latur, r/o Ausa, Tq.Ausa, Dist. Latur, at present Nilanga, Dist.Latur. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS 1 The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur Division, Latur, Dist. Latur. 2 The State of Maharashtra. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.R. Tandale, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for R.No.1. Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for R.no.2. ... CORAM:S.S. SHINDE,J. DATE : 25th AUGUST,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.1.2002 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Solapur in Revision (ULP) No.56/2000 by which the judgment and order dated 17.5.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.1/1995 2 was confirmed. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts since both the Courts below have elaborately narrated the facts and thereafter, proceeded to decide the matter. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted position that four passengers were traveling by the bus without ticket. However, by the time the passengers were checked by the Checker to know that whether necessary tickets were issued by the present petitioner or not, the present petitioner / original complainant was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers. He further submitted that the entire matter or controversy is about alleged misappropriation of Rs.17/- which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be misappropriated by the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that the concerned checker had not checked the cash bag. He further submitted that 3 merely because the tickets were not issued that cannot be the basis to infer that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of Rs.17/-. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the explanation offered by the petitioner and also the subsequent statement and submitted that his explanation is not taken into consideration by both the Courts below. He further submitted that necessary report is also not properly appreciated by the courts below. It is further submitted that the evidence of the petitioner as well as the witnesses cited on behalf of the petitioner is not properly appreciated by the courts below. Merely on the basis of preliminary inquiry, termination order was issued to the petitioner. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures thereto and submitted that even the past record of the petitioner is unblemished and he has not committed any sort of illegality or irregularity during his tenure as employee of respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4 5. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 invited my attention to the stand taken before the Industrial Court as well as Labour Court and submitted that not only in the present case the petitioner was involved in misappropriation but, he was involved in other incidents and his prior service record is not unblemished. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 supported the findings recorded by the courts below. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 further submitted that the petitioner herein did not enter into witness box or no witnesses were examined on his behalf. On the contrary, the respondent no.1 – Corporation has examined the witnesses and proved the case against the petitioner and, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 placed reliance on two reported judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sohan Lal etc. [AIR 2004 SC 4828] and in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh [2006(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 218] in support of her contention 5 that the Conductor, who has not issued tickets, does not deserve any leniency. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Respondent No.1 and the A.G.P. for Respondent No.2 State, and after perusal of the judgment and orders passed by the courts below, I am of the considered view that both the courts have properly considered the evidence brought on record. In paragraph 10 of the judgment the Labour Court has considered the documentary and oral evidence and came to the conclusion that it is an admitted position that the group of six passengers consisting four adults and two children were found without tickets when the Bus was checked at Valandi when the passengers were getting down. It is observed that it is the duty of the Conductor to issue tickets and collect the revenue from the passengers. It is further observed that there were about 82 passengers in the Bus and it was beyond the requisite capacity. The Labour Court has further observed in para 11 that Rs.2/- out of Rs.19/- were returned to the group of six passengers. It is further observed 6 that spot statement of passenger Shri Dhanraj and conductor complainant are proved by the witness of respondent – Corporation. The learned Judge of Labour Court has further observed that it is an admitted position that four passengers were traveling without tickets. 7. The Industrial Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment has referred to the spot statement of one passenger Dhanraj and held that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of said passenger Dhanraj. 8. On careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, it clearly appears that the courts below have examined the documents and record available and also the statements of witnesses and after appreciating the entire evidence, have come to the conclusion to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner. 9. The arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner are general in nature. To exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 7 Constitution, it must be shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse or the order is passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. When both the courts below have appreciated the facts, evidence and documents on record and have come to the definite conclusion, it is not permissible for this Court to go into re-appreciation of the evidence of documents and the scope of entertaining the writ petition is very limited. Unless it is clearly sown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, no interference is permissible. On careful scrutiny of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that no any substantial point, that too, law point has been raised to entertain this petition. 10. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the respondent No.1 -Corporation by leading evidence, has established the case against the petitioner. I do not think that this is a fit case wherein this Court should entertain the petition. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded 8 by the Courts below. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ..... 9 WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2002. Date of decision : 25th August, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Prakash Kadam] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge.