IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on disciplinary proceedings as standard of proof in both cases are different and proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8401 of 2003, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “MSRTC”) in which it challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 13 of 2002, directing reinstatement of respondent without back wages but with the continuity of service, original writ petitioner-MSRTC has preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein was serving as a driver and plying passenger buses. That on 23.10.1992 when he was driving the bus, it met with an accident with a jeep coming from the opposite direction. It appears that instead of taking the bus to the left side, he took the bus to the extreme right which was the wrong side and as a result, the jeep and the bus collided. The accident resulted in death of four passengers on the spot and six passengers were seriously injured. The jeep was completely damaged with its radiator and engine board broken and damaged and the inside of the jeep was completely crushed. The impact of the collision was so high that the jeep was pushed back by about 25 feet. The bumper of the bus was also crushed. The driver of the jeep also sustained injuries. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. On conclusion of enquiry he was dismissed from service. He was also prosecuted for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. However, he came to be acquitted (his acquittal shall be dealt with herein-below). The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal. In a revision application the Industrial Tribunal considering the acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings and observing that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent (contributory negligence), the Industrial Tribunal exercised powers under item No. 1(g) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. (“MRTU” and “PULP Act, 1971” for short), and held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Before the Industrial Tribunal the respondent/workman did not press for the back wages. The Industrial Tribunal directed his reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal ordering reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service, the appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has not only dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, but has also directed appellant to pay to the respondent back wages with effect from 01.11.2003 to 31.05.2018 i.e. which is the date of his superannuation. The High Court has also directed that the respondent shall also be entitled to retiral benefits on the basis of continuity of service with effect from date of his dismissal and till his superannuation.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal setting aside the order of dismissal and ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, the MSRTC has preferred the present appeal.

5. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-MSRTC has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved.

5.1 It is submitted that both, the High Court as well as the Industrial Cou