JUDGMENT - Thakker C.K., C.J.:---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on April 5, 2002 passed in Revision (ULP) No. 333 of 2001, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The petitioner was appointed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ("MSRTC" for short) as a conductor. It is the assertion of the petitioner that he was discharging his duties diligently and honestly. His bus was checked on April 3, 1998 and out of 24½ passengers, 9 passengers were found without tickets. An inquiry was instituted against the petitioner wherein it was found that the petitioner had not issued tickets to those passengers. Holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, he was dismissed from the service by the Corporation.

3. Being aggreived by the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached the First Labour Court at Nagpur by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 711 of 1998. The Labour Court, vide its order dated October 3, 2001, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It also recorded that perusal of the past service record of the workman was not unblemished as he was punished on six occasions because "he has not issued tickets". The Labour Court, however, observed that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the complainant was shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the respondent Corporation was directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service without backwages.

4. Being aggreived by the order passed by the Labour Court, the Corporation approached the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court, in the order impugned in the present petition, held that the Labour Court had committed grave error in directing reinstatement of the complainant. After considering several judgments as also taking into account earlier defaults, the Industrial Court held that the punishment of dismissal awarded by the Disciplinary Authority on the complainant was "perfectly legal, proper and correct considering the nature of misconduct committed by him of not issuing tickets to nine passengers though these passengers paid the fare of Rs. 22.50 to him". The above order is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Industrial Court has committed an error of law as well as an error of jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the Labour Court. It was submitted that under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), power has been conferred on the Labour Court to grant appropriate relief in case of such penalty. Having considered the facts and circumstances as also the earlier defaults, the power was exercised by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court ought not to have interfered with the order. The Counsel also urged that the Industrial Court ought to have taken into account a relevant and material fact, namely, that in all past cases, the petitioner was either given warning or imposed a small amount of fine upto Rs. 50/-. Relying on the procedure applicable in such cases, the Counsel submitted that if the amount of fine is up to Rs. 50/-, the order is not be appealable and no appeal could be filed against it. As in earlier defaults, in none of the cases the petitioner was imposed penalty of fine of more than Rs. 50/-, he could not file an appeal. Non-filing of appeal, therefore, could not come in the way of the petitioner. Finally, it was submitted that the petitioner had completed about twenty years of service. During that long term of service, he had committed only few irregularities and for such minor irregularities, extreme economic death penalty ought not to have been imposed on him. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. If at this stage, the impugned order is confirmed and he is asked to go home, it would create serious problems not only for him but for his family members a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document