1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 1999 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur. Through its Divisional Controller, Near Railway Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. …....... Petitioner. VERSUS Nathu S/o Jaggnath Injewar (Dead) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS i) Smt.Pinglabai Wd/o Natthu Injewar, Aged major, Occupation Household ii) Deepak S/o Natthu Injewar, Aged major, Occupation Not known, Both R/o Behind Qureshi Hospital Charpe Mohalla, Tin Khamba, Timki, Nagpur. …....... Respondents. Shri R.S.Charpe, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri C.V.Jagdale, Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1) In the proceeding Reference (IDA) No.192 of 1995, .....2/- 2 the Labour Court at Nagpur has set aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service, imposed upon the respondent-employee and has directed the reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent-employee in service. This is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2) The Labour Court at Nagpur set aside the findings of the enquiry committee on the ground, that the charge of absenteeism was for the month of April, 1994 to June, 1994, but the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is about absenteeism of the respondent-employee from July, 1994 to October, 1994. The Labour Court has also held that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent- employee, is shockingly disproportionate to the acts of misconduct. With these findings, the order of dismissal has been set aside, directing to pay back wages. 3) During the pendency of the Reference (IDA), the respondent-employee had attended the age of superannuation. With the assistance of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the enquiry report, which was placed on record before the Labour Court. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding about the absenteeism of the respondent-employee from April, 1994 to June, 1994 and in .....3/- 3 additiion to it, the finding is recorded, that the respondent- employee was absent from service from July, 1994 to October, 1994. Hence, the finding recorded by the Labour Court holding, that the charges are different than the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, cannot be sustained. 4) So far as disproportionate punishment is concerned, the Labour Court has held that the misconduct alleged, was of minor and technical character and the punishment has been imposed about the dismissal from service without having regard to the nature of particular misconduct or the past service record and hence, the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. None of the parties have led evidence before the Labour Court. The stand of the petitioner in the written statement was that on earlier occasion, the respondent-employee was dismissed from service on the same ground of misconduct and the past service record narrated in the written statement shows, that several opportunities were given to the respondent-employee and in spite of it, he did not improve. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in that respect is, therefore, perverse and not supported by any evidence on record, the same cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5) In view of above, the writ petition succeeds. The .....4/- 4 Award dated 16.4.1999 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.192 of 1995, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Reference stands answered in the negative. No order as to costs. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-