Maharashtra S.T. Workers Union through T.U. Yede v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the First Labour Court at Thane dated 18th November 2006 in Complaint (ULP) No. 81 of 1993 which is confirmed by the revisional Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 128 of 2006.

2. The concerned workman was serving as a driver since 1991. While driving the vehicle, he committed an accident which resulted into loss of two lives. The workman was subjected to departmental proceedings and the workman was dismissed from service. The said dismissal was challenged by way of complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 81 of 1993. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended before the Labour Court that the -2- domestic enquiry was held in a proper manner and the finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was perverse. The aforesaid complaint was resisted by the workman by filing reply Exhibit C-3. In the reply it was stated that the workman while driving the bus committed an accident by dashing a motor cycle and because of the same, pillion driver of the motor cycle died on the spot and the person who was driving the motor cycle also expired later on. It is the case of the respondent that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the workman. It is also the case of the respondent that a proper enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer reached the finding of fact that because of the rash and negligent driving of the workman that the accident occurred and on that basis the driver was dismissed from service. The revisional Court has observed in paragraph 4 of the order that the Labour Court had observed that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse. The Labour Court accordingly directed the parties to lead evidence before it. The workman led his evidence before the Labour Court and he was subjected to cross-examination by the other side. The management did not lead any evidence before the Court. On the basis of the available evidence on record before the Labour Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the misconduct has been proved and on that basis ultimately the complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court by its order dated 18th November, 2006. -3-

3. The said order was challenged by way of revision application before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane, being Revision Application (ULP) No. 128 of 2006. The revisional Court agreed with the finding of the Labour Court by holding that the misconduct against the concerned workman had been proved. The revisional Court found that considering the overall evidence on record, the proved fact could be taken into account to find out misconduct. The revisional Court also found that the Labour Court has considered the evidence in a proper manner and on that basis revision was dismissed. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned in this petition at the instance of the workman through the Union.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the management had not led any evidence before the Labour Court, whatever evidence the petitioner has led before the Labour Court should have been ignored. It is further submitted by her that the petitioner is required to be reinstated by giving back wages for the entire period. It is submitted by her that at the time when the revision was pending he was reinstated in service as there was interim order of the Labour Court at that time either to pay 80 per cent back wages to the workman or take back him in service. It seems that on that basis the management took him in service and paid 80 per cent back wages. -4-

5. I have heard heard both the learned counsel. I have also gone through the order of the Labour Court as well as the revisional Court. It is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence which was produced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the misconduct regarding rash and negligent driving on the part of the workman is proved. It is true that the management had not led any evidence before the Labour Court. However, on the basis of the evidence produced by the petitioner as well as on the basis of the cross-examination of the workman ultimately the Labour Court reached the finding of fact about rash and negligent driving of the workman which resulted into loss of two lives. The said finding of fact has been upheld by the revisional Court. In my view, the said finding cannot be reappreciated by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the other aspect, in my view, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned order of the Labour Court which is confirmed by the revisional Court.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the driver was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed of 20 kilometres. I cannot consider this aspect as even otherwise also it is found that because of the accident in question, the pillion rider as well as the person driving the -5- motor cycle died. Under these circumstances, both the orders impugned in this petition are not required to be interfered with. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the interim order of the Labour Court, the workman was not reinstated immediately but was reinstated after some time and even after reinstatement he was not paid full salary but was paid only 80 per cent. It is required to be pointed out that whatever period for which the workman was in actual service after reinstatement, 100 per cent wages should have been paid to him and, therefore, difference, if any, in this behalf may be paid to him and prior to that i.e. from the date of the interim order of the Labour Court till he was taken back in service he should be paid 80 per cent as per the order of the Labour Court. The difference if wages should be paid to him within four weeks from today. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the Corporation to inform the management to take appropriate steps for paying the amount, if any, on the basis of this order to the concerned workman. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.