IMPORTANT POINTS
The Court cannot grant compensation because termination was unjustified and the workman was past age of superannuation; and at the same time deny gratuity because the enquiry report mentioned the charge of moral turpitude.
Gratuity can be denied only when termination is for misconduct involving moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, aggrieved by the termination from service, raised an industrial dispute leading to the award in Reference IDA No. 42 of 2007 dated 20.06.2013 of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, Maharashtra. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 26.08.2002. However, noticing that the appellant had already crossed the date of superannuation, viz., 31.05.2005, it was ordered that from the date of termination to the date of superannuation, the appellant would be entitled to all service benefits except back wages which were limited to 50 per cent.

3. The respondent challenged the award before the High Court of Bombay. As per the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2015 in Writ Petition No. 3268 of 2014, the award was modified by granting only a one-time compensation of an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the back wages as awarded by the Labour Court. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

4. The charge against the appellant was that he had collected fare from six passengers while he was working as a conductor on 06.09.2001 in bus No. MH-20/J-4714 on its trip from Chalisgaon to Patanagaon, without issuing tickets. The inspecting team also found that there was a shortage of cash in his cash bag. A domestic inquiry followed and the inquiry officer found the appellant guilty, and on that basis, he was terminated from service.

5. Before the Labour Court, four issues were framed:

“1. Does the second party prove that the departmental enquiry held against him is unjust, unfair, improper and against the principles of natural justice, and the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse?

2. Does the second party prove that, the termination of his service is illegal, violating the provisions of law?

3. Whether the second party is entitled for the relief as sought for?

4. What order?”

6. The Labour Court found that:

“… As the alleged passengers have not been examined, an opportunity of cross examining them is not availed to the second party. The one and the same authority has issued charge sheet, conducted enquiry and suggested the punishment. Accordingly, serious prejudice is caused to the second party. One and the same authority is not expected to play the role of Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority, which is inconsistent to the provisions of law. Accordingly, with biased mind enquiry has been conducted. Despite of not examining the witnesses the enquiry officer considered their statements recorded on the spot and concluded that, charges of misconduct have been proved against the second party. Besides this, the reporter has not stated before the Enquiry Officer in terms of his report. Accordingly, the enquiry officer has recorded his findings on the basis of no evidence and therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer appears to be perverse one. …”

7. On issue no.2, it was noted that:

“… in the light of findings on issue no.1 that, the enquiry held against the Complainant was fair, proper and legal and the findings of enquiry officer are perverse, then it is for first party to prove the alleged charges of misconduct before this court. It is pertinent to note that, in their written statement the first party has not made prayer that, if the court arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry held against the Complainant was not fair, proper and legal and the findings of enquiry officer are perverse, then they may be permitted to prove the misconduct of second party before this court by leading evidence. But, they failed to do so. No witness is examined by the first party. Hence, the alleged misconduct of second party has not been proved before this court.”

8. Still further, the Labour Court proceeded further and found that:

“14. In a case before me, testified evidence of second party at Exh. U-8 & U-13 reflect that, he was working with first party as a bus conducted since 05.04.1971 at Chopda Depot. Thereafter he was transferred to Amalner Depot and Chalisgaon Depot. However, w