This petition challenges a revisional order passed by the Industrial Court at Solapur. The Industrial Court was considering in the revision a reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court at Sangli in favour of the Petitioner herein, who was the original complainant before the Labour Court in a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It was the case of the Petitioner, who was working as conductor with the Respondent-corporation that he was illegally terminated from service. The Labour Court partly allowed the Petitioner's complaint and granted him reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. That order was purportedly on the footing that though the Petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in a duly conducted enquiry, the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was disproportionate to the charges proved against him. The revisional court found that the misconduct was sufficiently serious and warranted the punishment of dismissal. It, accordingly, allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this court by the present writ petition.

The petitioner was working with the Respondent-corporation since December 1988. On 31 October 1991, whilst he was on duty on a bus running from Subhash Nagar to Sangli Bus Stand, a passenger, who had boarded the bus at Ram Mandir Stop and who was to travel upto the last destination, i.e. Stangli Bus Stand, was found without ticket. The ticket checker formed an opinion that the passenger had paid the fare but was not issued ticket. The ticket, which was purportedly not issued, was of Rs.1.25. A chargesheet was thereupon given to the Petitioner and a departmental enquiry was held, in which he was found guilty of the charge of not issuing ticket despite collecting fare. The Petitioner was thereafter dismissed on the proven charge. The dismissal was challenged by the Petitioner before the Labour Court in the present complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court found the enquiry to be duly and fairly conducted. The Court was, however, of the view that considering the value of the ticket, which was purportedly not issued by the Petitioner, the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was shockingly disproportionate considering the nature and gravity of the charge and his past record. The Labour Court, accordingly, set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any back wages. The corporation carried the matter in revision before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur. The Industrial Court was of the view that when misappropriation was proved, whether for a large or a small amount, there was no question of showing any uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employee in service; and there was no question of considering past record in case of proven misappropriation. The court held that whereas it was the discretion of the employer to consider any such past record in an appropriate case, it was not for the Labour Court to substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases on the basis of past record. It, accordingly, allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court.

Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the Respondent-corporation, relies on disciplinary rules termed as 'Discipline & Appeal Procedure' of Maharashtra State Road Transport corporation (“D & A Procedure”). Relying on these rules, learned Counsel submits that failure to issue a ticket to a passenger by a conductor despite recovery of fare comes within sub-clause (c) of clause 7 of Schedule 'A' to the procedure, which sets out acts of misconduct. Learned Counsel submits that if misconduct under item 7(c) is proved, the only punishment prescribed in the applicable D & A Procedure is discharge or dismissal from the services of the corporation. It is onl