The Industrial Court should not interfere when grave misconduct is proved, and leniency is unwarranted. The employer has the domain to maintain discipline, and the employee's past service record is relevant in such cases.

JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner State Road Transport Corporation is challenging the order dated 17-4-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, in Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU && PULP Act). The Labour Court dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.393 of 1989 filed by present respondent challenging the order of dismissal of his service after departmental enquiry on 16-8-1989. The Industrial Court has not disturbed that order but on humanitarian ground the petitioner has been directed to withdraw the dismissal and reinstate the respondent as fresh employee. This direction of Industrial Court is stayed by this court on 12-3-1997.

3. Shri. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, reported at (2006)6 SCC 187 : [2006(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 218], contends that once a misconduct of grave and serious nature was proved against the employee, the Industrial Court could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction and shown any mercy to him. He contends that in these circumstances, maintenance of standard of discipline and therefore quantum of punishment are the domain of employer and the Industrial Court has acted without jurisdiction by directing reinstatement of such an employee. He has also invited attention to discussion in this respect as done by the Labour Court in its judgment dated 19-9-1990 and also to past service record of the respondent.

4. Shri. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Industrial Court has in fact acted upon the mute consent expressed by the present petitioner. He contends that in view of said consent, present writ petition itself is not tenable. He has taken this Court through the relevant part of order of Industrial Court for that purpose. He has also invited attention to Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Vs.

Official Liquidator, reported at 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 457, to substantiate his contention.

5. The perusal of judgment on which Shri. Khan, learned counsel has placed reliance, particularly paragraphs 21 and 22 shows that the Division Bench found that the appellant before it was in fact party to order passed by learned Company Judge and invited said order. In view of this finding, the Division Bench found that it was consent order. In present case, the Industrial court has reproduced the arguments of Shri. Borde, counsel for M.S.R.T. in paragraph 3 of its order and in paragraph 4, it has recorded that counsel for revisional applicant - employee did not deny the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in revision. The Industrial Court has then reproduced the poor and pathetic condition of respondent by narrating the arguments advanced before it by his advocate. The Industrial Court has found that said counsel for the respondent - employee argued that employee was about 45 years old at that time and admitted in Medical College for treatment of serious diseases like diabetic and Tuberculosis. The counsel for the employee stated that employee needed huge amount for his medical treatment and his family members were not in a position to defray those expenses. He further argued that if employee was dismissed, all his family members would be thrown on streets and the counsel therefore requested the Industrial Court to give last chance to the employee for amending his behaviour. The Industrial Court has thereafter recorded that "learned counsel Shri. Borde also has not disputed these submissions of Shri. Nawlani". This line has been relied upon by Shri. Khan to contend that Borde, counsel for MSRTC mutely consented to the orders of the Industrial Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document