The main legal point established is that the punishment of dismissal must not be shockingly disproportionate, and the Industrial Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited.

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner - employee has challenged the order of Industrial Court dated 8. 8. 1994 passed in Revision (ULP) No. 121 of 1986 by which the learned Member has substituted punishment of dismissal inflicted by the employer upon him by directing the respondent - employer to reinstate him to his former post without continuity and without back wages.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was on duty on hyderabad to Akola route on 6. 11. 1983 and his bus was checked. In checking it was found that one passenger was travelling without ticket from Nanded to Hingoli and certain way bill columns were found to be not properly filled in and there was over writing. A charge-sheet dated 8. 2. 1984 for misconducts falling under Clauses 7 (a), 7 (d), 10, 12 (b), 27 and 35 (b) of Schedule "a" of discipline and Appeal Procedure was served upon the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted against him and after said enquiry, he was dismissed by order dated 29. 1. 1985. He challenged this dismissal as unfair labour practice by filing ULP complaint No. 52 of 1985 before the labour court at Akola. The complaint was opposed by the present respondent / employer. The labour Court found that enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and valid and also findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. It found that the charges were therefore proved against him. It also considered the argument that punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate and concluded that the misconduct proved was not of minor or technical character and hence the punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. It, therefore, dismissed the complaint. The petitioner challenged this judgment of labour court by filing Revision under section 44 of maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the learned Member of Industrial court vide Revision (ULP) No. 121 of 1986. The Industrial Court, Amravati, vide its order dated 8. 8. 1994 found that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. It found that though said passenger i. e. a lady had travelled about 68 kms. without ticket, she was not related to the petitioner and petitioner had no other interest in her and there was no material on record to show that the petitioner was to gain any advantage because of her travelling without ticket. It, therefore, held that at the most the petitioner was grossly negligent in discharging his duties as Conductor and hence it recorded that finding. In view of said finding, it substituted the punishment by ordering present respondent employer to reinstate the petitioner back in service without continuity and without back wages.

( 3 ) HEARD Shri Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent.

( 4 ) SHRI Khan, learned Counsel has contended that the petitioner retired within one year of his reinstatement as per order of Industrial Court and he lost advantage of his earlier service and could not therefore got the terminal benefits like pension or gratuity. He states that the learned Member of industrial Court having found the misconducts to be minor or technical, could not have imposed such punishment upon the petitioner. He states that this punishment substituted by the Industrial Court is shockingly disproportionate. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Colour Chem Limited Vs. A. L. Alaspurkar) , reported at 1998 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)644 : 1999 (3) Mh. L. J. 167 : A. I. R. 1998 s. C. 948, in support.

( 5 ) AS against this, Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the charges were of grave and serious nature and as per Discipline and Appeal procedure Rules, punishment of dismissal was provided for such misconducts and hence this punishment was imposed by the employer. He further states that the Industrial Court granted him relief of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document