Dismissing the petition against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed by a Conductor who was accused of committing misappropriation, the Bombay High Court vacated the interim protection granted to him and further directed the Labor Court at Kolhapur to decide the unfair labour practices complaint on its own merits.

The Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar, while referring to State of Haryana v Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491], held that non-examination of passengers was not required to prove misconduct of a conductor, and the findings could not be termed as perverse merely for that reason and given the petitioner’s past punishments, the proposed punishment of dismissal was also not disproportionate.

The Bench noted that “it is too late in the day to urge that the findings of the Inquiry Officer can be termed as perverse merely for non-examination for the passengers from whom the complainant allegedly collected fare but did not issue tickets. The aforesaid pronouncements also indicate that once misappropriation is established, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate, albeit, regard should be had to be circumstances of the given case, including the past conduct of the delinquent.”

Advocate Pavitra Mahesh appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Yashodeep Deshmukh appeared for the Respondent.

In this case, the petitioner had been working as a Conductor with the Corporation since 2006. In 2014, an inspection squad found several discrepancies in his bus, including the fact that he had accepted fare from 4 passengers without issuing tickets and thereby committing misappropriation. The squad had further found the cash balance to be short by Rs. 935. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were held. After the inquiry report, he was issued a show-cause notice for dismissal.

A complaint was filed alleging unfair labour practices under Item 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 (Act of 1971). It was alleged, inter alia, that the proposed punishment of dismissal was prima facie illegal and by way of victimization and was also shockingly disproportionate. An application was preferred for interim relief seeking to restrain the respondent corporation from imposing any penalty against the petitioner till the final decision. The Labor Court and Industrial Court had found, prima facie that the inquiry was fair and findings were not perverse which led to the petitioner filing the present writ petition.

The issue for consideration was whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection during the pendency of the complaint of unfair labour practice. Since the interim protection had been in operation right from the filing of the complaint, the Bench delved into the aspect of entitlement to and continuation of interim protection though concurrent decisions were holding that the petitioner did not deserve the exercise of discretion in his favour.

The petitioner had sought interim relief on three grounds, namely that the enquiry was not fair and proper; that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were perverse; and that the proposed penalty was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Bench found that the Labour Court and Industrial Court had recorded prima facie finding that the Corporation adhered to the prescriptions in Discipline and Appeal rules and the principles of natural justice.

Finding that the complainant was provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing, the Bench concluded that there was no substance in the contention on behalf of the complainant that the enquiry was not fair and proper.

Cause Title: Subhash Gulabchand Pawar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Bombay High CourtJustice N.J. Jamadar

Pankaj Bajpai