The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of legal evidence to support dismissal for misconduct, and the consideration of proportionality in imposing disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established for the purpose of transportation of mainly passengers and goods by buses throughout the State of Maharashtra and also outside the State to provide transport facilities to the public. The respondent was employed as a conductor by the Petitioner Corporation from 1965. On 5-2-1984 he was on his duty as a Conductor on the route Udgir to Deoni via Kamalawadi. It appears from record that his bus was checked by the petitioner's Checking Party and it was found that at Stage No. 5 one lady passenger who had boarded the bus at Kamalawadi for Deoni had paid an amount of Rs. 0.60 ps. at the boarding point to the respondent for her ticket fare, but she was not issued ticket by the respondent-conductor. It was also alleged that a Group of five childrens who were to be charged half the fare had boarded the bus at Kamalawadi for Deoni and had paid Rs. 1.50 ps. towards their bus fare to the respondent at boarding point and that no tickets were issued to them at the boarding point or thereafter, but he had hurriedly issued tickets only after seeing the Checking Party. It was also alleged against the respondent-conductor that the Way-Bill which he was supposed to complete did not reflect the issuance of the aforesaid tickets to the passengers. It was also alleged that he had hurriedly issued tickets and therefore, one excess ticket of 30 paise came to be issued. It is an admitted position that the cash found in the hands of the respondent was checked and was found short by Rs. 5.40 ps. It further appears that the checking party had recorded statements of those passengers on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid incident as reported by the Checking Party a charge sheet was issued on 9-2-1984 to the respondent conductor and he was dismissed on 29-7-1984 after a domestic enquiry held by the petitioner Corporation in the charges levelled against him.

2.Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 29-7-1984 and after completion of internal appeals which were also dismissed, the respondent conductor filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice before the Labour Court at Solapur which was subsequently transferred to the Labour Court at Latur. The dismissal order was challenged under Item 1(a), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. The hub of the complaint filed by the respondent-conductor was that he had not committed any act of misconduct and that he was falsely implicated in the case to victimise him as he was an active trade union worker. He further made a grievance that the Checking Party had given a false report that he had issued tickets after noticing the Checking Party. It was his contention that no passenger was found without any ticket. As far as the point of the enquiry is concerned the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no legal evidence before him to find the conductor guilty of the charge of dishonesty etc. mainly because it was an admitted position that no passengers were found by the Checking Party without any tickets. This is an admitted position that the conductor had issued tickets to all the passengers in the bus. It was the case of the Checking Party that the tickets were issued to the aforesaid two passengers when the conductor had seen the Checking Party. In support of this contention it was pointed out that the way bill did not reflect the issuance of such tickets. The Labour Court has considered the entire evidence before the Enquiry Officer and recorded a finding that the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the guilt were perverse as the concerned passengers were not examined in the enquiry. This was the only ground on which the Labour Court concluded the findings to be perverse. The Labour Court has interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground of punishment to be harsh and shockingly disproportionate, and directed reinstatement of the respondent conductor with 75% of back

Click Here to Read the rest of this document