The main legal point established in the judgment is that when reinstatement is not possible and back wages are required to be allowed for a significant period, a portion of the amount is normally granted to the concerned employee.

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Shri B.M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent – Conductor.

2. This Court has, while issuing notice to the respondent on 18.10.2007, on prayer for stay, stayed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This order was confirmed on 14.03.2008. In that order, the Division Bench has taken note of period of 29 years for which back wages were allowed by the learned Single Judge and stayed that part. The appellant – Corporation was directed to reinstate the Conductor.

3. According to Shri Khan, learned counsel, in view of this order, Conductor was reinstated and he worked for some time and then superannuated.

4. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel invites attention to observations by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment to show that on the date on which writ petition was heard, the Conductor had already superannuated.

5. We do not wish to go into this controversy. For proved misconduct of misappropriation of M.S.R.T.C. amount by tampering with the Concise Way Bill Abstract (CWA), by order dated 14.07.1983, punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the Conductor. It is to be noted that prior thereto, on 24.04.1979, ID Application No. 75 of 1979 was moved by the present appellant before Conciliation Officer, seeking permission to dismiss the respondent – Conductor, a protected employee. The permission was refused by the Conciliation Officer on 28.05.1980. After that refusal, the Inquiry Officer took some steps and then above mentioned order of dismissal was passed. This is only to show that the period for which back wages are payable is almost 29 years.

6. The punishment of dismissal formed subject matter of Reference (IDA) No. 23 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Chandrapur. That Court decided preliminary issue regarding fairness and validity of Departmental Inquiry as also issues on merits by common order dated 31.10.1991. The inquiry was held to be valid, misconduct was held to be established and punishment was maintained. With the result, Labour Court answered the reference in negative.

7. This Award was then questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 419 of 1993. The learned Single Judge pronounced the judgment on 04.06.2007. In that judgment, it has been found that authority competent to initiate departmental inquiry was Depot Manager as misconduct came to light in the premises of Aheri Depot. Initiation of proceedings by the Divisional Traffic Superintendent and issuance of charge sheet by that authority was, therefore, held bad. Apart from this, while commenting upon the validity or otherwise of Departmental Inquiry, course adopted by the Inquiry Officer, after rejection of permission by the Conciliation Officer, has been criticized. It has been held that the Conductor was not given due and proper opportunity, with the result, inquiry itself was found bad. In the light of these findings and the fact that the Conductor had superannuated already, Court granted him full back wages as relief of reinstatement could not have been granted.

8. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel, in this background submits that the misconduct consists of carrying passengers without ticket and of tampering records to misappropriate the amount. Tickets earlier sold and recorded with numbers in CWA were again shown as sold by the Conductor, with the result, double sale of very same tickets was reflected. However, while depositing M.S.R.T.C. cash and unsold tickets, this double sale was not pointed out. He contends that thus, misappropriation was not within the premises of Aheri Depot but when bus was travelling from Shironcha to Asarali and hence, the Divisional Traffic Superintendent was the right authority to issue charge sheet.

9. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel points out that in routine course and at random when this CWA of Conductor was checked, the mischief was discovered and thereafter