1 W.P.No.2617.97 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2617 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioners v/s Shri Bhagwan Narayan Wahal & anr. ... Respondents Mr.G.S.Hegde for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioners have challenged the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.257 of 1994. By this award the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to respondent No.1 workman. 2. The facts in the present case are briefly stated as under:- 2 W.P.No.2617.97 The respondent No.1 workman was employed as a driver with the petitioners. A charge-sheet was issued against respondent No.1 workman for certain acts of misconduct after he fatally wounded a girl in a road accident while driving the bus owned by the petitioners. Since the respondent’s reply to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was held against him. The enquiry officer found respondent No.1 guilty of the acts of the misconduct alleged against him. A show cause notice was issued against respondent No.1 directing him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Since the reply of the respondent was not accepted, an order of dismissal was passed by the petitioners on 11.4.1984. The respondent preferred a departmental appeal which was allowed. The appellate authority held that the respondent No.1 was not rash and negligent in driving the bus and, therefore, directed that he should be re-employed in service as a fresh employee. Accordingly, the respondent was re- employed on 30.7.1985 and was continued in service till he was superannuated on 31.10.2001. 3. The Labour Court by its award has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. That award has been challenged in the present petition. 3 W.P.No.2617.97 Undisputedly, the workman continued to work with the petitioners as a fresh employee from 30.7.1985 till he was superannuated on 31.10.2001. 4. Mr.Hegde appearing for the petitioner takes exception to the award. He contends that the Labour Court has been too lenient in awarding reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages when due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1 a little girl was killed. He submits that the punishment must be imposed on such an employee and, therefore, the grant of the relief in the award is uncalled for. 5. This objection raised by Mr.Hegde to the award is well founded. Undisputedly, the respondent had caused a fatal accident due to his rash and negligent driving. He had been dismissed after holding an enquiry. In my opinion, the Labour Court ought not to have granted the relief that he claimed in his statement of claim. When a rash and negligent act of a bus driver causes a life to be lost, punishment must be imposed on that driver. Of course, the quantum of punishment would vary depending upon his past service record and various other factors. 4 W.P.No.2617.97 6. In the present case, unfortunately the petitioners did not bother to attend the proceedings before the Labour Court. The written statement filed by the petitioners belatedly was accepted, subject to payment of costs. Since the costs were not paid, the written statement was not accepted. Thus, the pleadings in the statement of claim as well as the deposition of the workman went unchallenged. 7. However, on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the grant of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service is uncalled for and not commensurate with the misconduct committed by the workman. 8. Therefore, the award is modified as follows:- (i) The petitioners are directed to reinstate respondent No.1 workman on his original post with continuity of service. However, respondent No.1 would not be entitled to back wages. Accordingly, the fresh employment of the respondent No.1 workman on 30.7.1985 shall be treated as a continuous employment with the petitioners from the date he was dismissed from service on 11.4.1984. This period from 11.4.1984 to 30.7.1985 shall be treated as continuous and 5 W.P.No.2617.97 without any break for the purposes of payment of gratuity, provident fund and all other legal dues, except for payment of back wages. 9. Writ petition disposed of. Rule made absolute partly. ..... 6 W.P.No.2617.97