WP/1045/2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1045 OF 2000 Sambhaji Maruti Jadhav ... Petitioner V/s. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation, Kolhapur & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale for the Petitioner. Mr. G.A. Karmalkar h/f. Mr. G.S. Hegde for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 9 TH DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The short question involved in the present Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to back-wages for the period of his unemployment with the respondent No.1-Corporation. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner to the effect that he had committed the misconduct of negligence; a pedestrian had died on account of the accident committed by the petitioner while driving a Bus owned by the respondent No.1-Corporation. The petitioner was arrested and criminal proceedings ensued. He was acquitted on 21st July, 1993. However, the enquiry constituted against him proceeded and ultimately the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the acts of misconduct alleged against him. The respondent No.1- Corporation thereupon dismissed the petitioner from service on 3rd May, 1995. WP/1045/2000 2 2. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) No.177 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Kolhapur, in which he sought a declaration under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”). The petitioner sought an amendment to this complaint on 15th January, 1998, which was granted. The respondent No.1-Corporation filed its written statement contending that the dismissal order passed by it was legal and proper and that in view of the fatal accident, the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. 3. The Labour Court found that although procedurally the enquiry was fair and proper, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The respondent No. 1-Corporation was, thus, permitted to lead evidence to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner. This order was passed on 9th March, 1998. The Labour Court then observed that despite the permission granted to the respondent No.1-Corporation to lead evidence, it did not avail of the opportunity. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Labour Court found that it was not possible to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges had been proved against the petitioner, especially since he had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. The Labour Court, therefore, granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages to the petitioner on finding that the respondent No. WP/1045/2000 3 1-Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 1(b) and 1(f) of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Revision Application (ULP) No.149 of 1998 was filed by the respondent No.1-Corporation challenging the order of the Labour Court. No interim relief was granted to the respondent No.1-Corporation. The respondent No.1-Corporation, therefore, preferred Writ Petition No.6713 of 1998 against the order passed by the Industrial Court refusing it interim relief. 4. This Court by its order dated 17th February, 1999, directed the Industrial Court to dispose of the Revision Application (ULP) No.149 of 1998 expeditiously and the Writ Petition was disposed of. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 7th September, 1999 has reversed the findings of the Labour Court with respect to back-wages. The Industrial Court observed that since no evidence was led by the petitioner showing that he had demanded back-wages and that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his unemployment, he was not entitled to any back-wages. However, the Industrial Court confirmed the findings of the Labour Court with respect to reinstatement and continuity of service of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. On perusal of the Complaint (ULP) No.177 of 1995, as amended, I find that the petitioner has demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. However, there is no evidence on record led by the petitioner to show that he was not gainfully employed during this period after his dismissal in May, WP/1045/2000 4 1995 upto his reinstatement on 6th March, 1999. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the Complaint (ULP) No.177 of 1995 to the Labour Court, Kolhapur, for it to decide whether the back-wages are payable to the petitioner-workman during the aforesaid period. 6. The impugned order of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, is set aside to the extent that it refuses back-wages to the petitioner. The Complaint (ULP) No.177 of 1995 is remanded to the Labour Court, Kolhapur, to decide whether the back- wages are payable to the petitioner-workman during the period from 3rd May, 1995 to 6th March, 1999. 7. The Labour Court, Kolhapur, will permit the parties to lead evidence only on this issue i.e. whether the petitioner-workman is entitled to back-wages. This issue shall be decided within a period of two months from today. 8. Parties to appear before the Labour Court, Kolhapur on 3rd January, 2011. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed. 10. Rule made absolute. No orders as to costs.