1 W.P.No.6921.98 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6921 OF 1998 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Petitioner v/s 1. I.M. Mokashi ... Respondent Mr.G.A.Karmalkar i/by Mr.G.S.Hegde for the petitioner. Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Labour Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 2 of 1997. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to appoint the respondent afresh as a Conductor. The petitioner has further been directed to observe the day-to-day working of the respondent employee and if he was found honest and faithful then the petitioner was directed to confirm him in service. 2 W.P.No.6921.98 2. The petitioner had employed the respondent as a Conductor in 1987. It was found that he had re-issued eight tickets of `10/- denominations to various passengers and had scored out the entries in the way-bill and a sum of `48.40 was found in excess there in the cash collection bag. When the checking squad entered the bus and questioned the respondent, he refused to co-operate and assaulted the officers of the petitioner Corporation. He threw away the ticket tray, his uniform and ran away from the spot. The bus was then driven to the police station and the statement of the respondent was recorded there. It appears that thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent and an enquiry was conducted against him. He was finally dismissed by an order dated 27.10.1996. 3. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.133 of 1993 against his dismissal. It was pleaded that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices 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 (in short, the MRTU & PULP Act). The complaint was dismissed as the Labour Court found that the misconduct alleged against the respondent had been proved. 3 W.P.No.6921.98 4. The respondent employee then preferred Revision Application (ULP) No.2 of 1997 which has been allowed and the impugned order has been passed. The Industrial Court has held that the misconduct committed by the respondent of re-issuance of eight tickets was a serious misconduct. The Industrial Court has further held that it was clear that the intention of the respondent was to misappropriate the amount of `48.40 ps. which was also a serious misconduct. However, the Industrial Court was of the view that the punishment imposed on the respondent of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. It therefore directed the appointment of the respondent as a fresh employee. The Industrial Court further directed that the respondent should be continued in service, provided his service record after the appointment, was clean. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner has reappointed the respondent. However, the appointment letter which was issued on 12.3.2009 indicates that his fresh appointment was subject to the result of the present petition. 6. In view of the fact that the respondent was continued in service for more than 10 years on reappointment, I had directed the learned advocate for the petitioner to ascertain whether the respondent had a clean service record on 4 W.P.No.6921.98 reappointment. The learned advocate for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has punished the respondent with the stoppage of increments for six months as a passenger was found ticketless in a bus when the respondent was on duty as a Conductor on 19.2.2008. He also points out that two charge-sheets were issued to the respondent. One charge-sheet has been issued on 21.2.2009 for re-issuance of used tickets amounting to `191/- and for retaining an excess amount of `38/-. Another charge-sheet was issued to him on 21.1.2010 for the misconduct of not issuing tickets although he had collected the fare of `80/- from two passengers on 19.12.2009. 7. In my opinion, when both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have found that the charge against the respondent was serious, the Industrial Court ought not to have granted reappointment. Even assuming it is possible to accept that a lenient view could have been taken in the case of the respondent, as has been done by the Industrial Court, the respondent has shown no remorse. He has continued with his acts of misconduct. Such an employee, in my opinion, would not be entitled to continue in service especially when his acts caused a loss to the coffers of the Corporation. 5 W.P.No.6921.98 8. It appears that the respondent is incorrigible and, therefore, the order of the Industrial Court granting him reappointment in service is required to be set aside. The Industrial Court itself had directed that he should be confirmed in service only after he was found to be honest and faithful to the petitioner Corporation. 9. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed. 10. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The order of the Industrial Court is set aside. No order as to costs. ..... 6 W.P.No.6921.98