ORDER

Respondent was appointed as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation, on the allegations that the respondent-workman demanded a bribe to get an appointment on compassionate appointment, Security Officer of the Corporation laid a trap and got the respondent-workman red handed for having received the bribe from the complainant. The Security Officer submitted the report regarding the conduct of the workman in receiving the bribe to do official favour, articles of charges were issued that he has received gratification and has behaved in a manner unbecoming of the Corporation servant. Articles of charges replied by the respondent was not accepted and the respondent was subjected to the domestic enquiry, Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted its finding holding that the charges are proved, Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal from service on the charge of proved misconduct.

2. Dispute was raised against the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, the respondent- workman attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper and by impugned order held that the dismissal of the workman was harsh and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation, however, the relief of backwages was denied, further held that the period on which the workman did not work in the Corporation due to the dismissal was to be treated as on duty for the calculation of pensionary benefits as the workman has already attained the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the Corporation is before this Court.

3. Heard Smt. Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the procedure which was required to be followed in the matter of trap was not followed by the Security Officer, while recording the finding, the Labour Court held that the charges levelled against the respondent and the dismissal order requires to be reconsidered after appreciation of the evidence of M.W.2 – Management witness. The Labour Court also noticed that the respondent-workman was dismissed from service on 17.02.2016, when he was left with only three months to attain the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.05.2016, the reasons accorded by the Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal are justified, however, reasons assigned to treat the respondent case with other employees for similar misconduct would not be relevant as negative equality cannot be considered.

5. It is trite law that equality is a positive subject, there cannot be negative equality in law and merely because in few cases, the corporation has viewed the misconduct leniently, that would not give a right to the delinquent to seek the similar orders by this Court and thus, the reasoning of the Labour Court that, in light of the similar orders for identical misconduct, minor punishment has been imposed and the same needs to be placed reliance for the respondent-workman would not be a justifiable reason by the Labour Court. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Company and another1 has held at paragraph No.13 as under:

“13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case

1 (2003) 5 SCC 437

direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuat