WP/3200/1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3200 OF 1997 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thane ... Petitioner V/s. N.Z. Sayyed & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. G.A. Karmalkar h/f. G.S. Hegde & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Indrajeet R. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The Writ Petition has been preferred against the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No.23 of 1988 by the Labour Court, Thane on 31st August, 1996. By this Award, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and full back-wages w.e.f. 30th January, 1985. 2. The respondent No.1 was employed as a “Driver” and worked as such till he was charge sheeted on 3rd October, 1984. The misconduct alleged against the respondent No.1-workman was of indiscipline, gross negligence and irregular attendance. WP/3200/1997 2 3. An enquiry was held against the respondent No.1 by the petitioner-Corporation and he was dismissed as it was found that the allegations made against him had been proved. Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute, which has been referred for adjudication by the Labour Court and registered as Reference (IDA) No.23 of 1988. The parties filed their pleadings before the Labour Court and led evidence. By Award Part I, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the respondent No.1 was fair and legal. 4. By Award Part II, which is impugned in the present Petition, the Labour Court has held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the respondent No. 1. The Labour Court, therefore, granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages to the respondent No.1. While doing so, the Labour Court has held that the misconduct alleged against the respondent No.1-workman had not been proved. Reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages have been granted to respondent No.1 by the Labour Court after considering his past service record. As the Labour Court found that the absence of the respondent No.1-workman was due to his illness, it held that the dismissal order was unreasonable. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that there was no averment on record to show that the respondent No.1 WP/3200/1997 3 was gainfully employed. In these circumstances, it passed the impugned award. 5. When the Petition was admitted on 30th September, 1997, this Court noted that the petitioner-Corporation had reinstated the respondent No.1 in service with continuity from 27th August, 1997. This Court, therefore, stayed the payment of back-wages on the deposit of Rs.30,000/- in this Court. 6. I have perused the Award Part II which has been challenged in the present Petition. In my opinion, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for granting reinstatement with continuity of service. However, it has granted full back-wages from 30th January, 1985 without there being any evidence on record as to whether the respondent No.1 was gainfully employed after he was terminated from service by the petitioner-Corporation. In fact, the Labour Court has noted that the parties to the Reference have not led any oral evidence before the Court but advanced oral arguments only. 7. In my opinion, there would be no point in remanding the matter to the Labour Court to decide whether the back-wages are payable since no evidence has been led by the parties in that respect. The amount of Rs.30,000/-, which was directed to be deposited in this Court when the Petition was admitted, has been withdrawn by the WP/3200/1997 4 respondent No.1-workman pursuant to the leave granted by this Court. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances in the case, this amount shall be treated as back-wages payable for the period from 30th January, 1985 till 27th August, 1997. 8. Accordingly, the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No.23 of 1988 by the Labour Court, Thane on 31st August, 1996 is modified as under : The respondent No.1 is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and Rs.30,000/- as back-wages. The amount of Rs.30,000/- has already been paid to the respondent No.1- workman. 9. Rule made absolute partly. No order as to costs. 10. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1- workman, points out that despite an order dated 13th January, 2006, directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay all the legal benefits and dues payable to the respondent No.1-workman, who had retired from service w.e.f. 31st March, 1998, the petitioner-Corporation has not paid the amounts. The petitioner-Corporation shall comply with the order of 13th January, 2006 passed by this Court within a period of eight weeks from today.