IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of proving charges based on evidence and admission, and justified the penalty of dismissal while considering the respondent's reinstatement and service till superannuation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 16 January 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dismissing Petitioner’s Revision Application (ULP) No. 87 of 2007 and confirming the Judgment and Order dated 20 February 2007 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Ratnagiri in Complaint (ULP) No. 13 of 2002. By its order, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the Respondent in service from the date of dismissal with continuity and full backwages.

2. Respondent was employed as Conductor in the Petitioner-State Transport Corporation since 1980. He was deployed on ST bus on Pachambe-Rajivali-Sangameshwar Route on 24 January 2002. The ST bus was checked at Aravali Railway Stage No.7 by the checking team, which found that two passengers were possessing two tickets of Rs.4/- which were already sold on 22 January 2002. Upon checking the ST cash of the Respondent, it was revealed that he had excess cash of Rs.53/-. A Memorandum of Chargesheet was issued to the Respondent on 22 January 2002. He was placed under suspension during 4 February 2002 to 23 March 2002. Domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges, in which the Respondent apparently admitted the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the Respondent guilty of the charges. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated 5 April 2002 was issued to the Respondent proposing to impose penalty of dismissal from service. The Respondent replied the show cause notice on 9 April 2002. After considering his reply, Order dated 10 April 2002 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.

3. The Respondent approached the Labour Court, Kolhapur by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 82 of 2002 challenging the dismissal Order dated 10 April 2002. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner-Corporation by filing Written Statement. The Labour Court allowed the complaint by Judgment and Order dated 31 August 2005 and directed Respondent’s reinstatement with full backwages. Petitioner approached the Industrial Court, Kolhapur by filing Revision (ULP) No. 52 of 2006, which came to be partly allowed and the complaint was remanded for fresh decision.

4. It appears that Respondent filed purshis before the Labour Court at Exhibit-C-17 admitted the validity of enquiry conducted against him. The Labour Court however held on 29 September 2006 that the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer was perverse and granted opportunity to the Petitioner to lead evidence to prove the charges. Accordingly, Petitioner examined Shashikant Baburao Kholase as its witness. The Labour Court thereafter passed Judgment and Order dated 20 February 2007 allowing the complaint and set aside the penalty of dismissal imposed on the Respondent directing his reinstatement with continuity and full backwages.

5. Petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 87 of 2007 under the provisions of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act) challenging the Labour Court’s decision dated 20 February 2007. The Industrial Court however proceeded to dismiss the revision filed by the Petitioner by Judgment and Order dated 16 January 2009. It appears that Petitioner reinstated Respondent on 22 June 2009 and filed the present Petition in July 2009 challenging the decisions of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. This Court stayed the impugned Order by Order dated 22 January 2010. The Petition was thereafter admitted by Order dated 29 November 2010 and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (b) thereby staying the Judgment and Order dated 20 February 2007 passed by the Labour Court and 16 January 2009 passed by the Industrial Court. Later, this Court clarified by Order dated 10 September 2012 that since Respondent was already reinstated in service, the stay g