WP/10198/2015

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10198 OF 2015

VISHVANATH RAMESH SHINDE

VERSUS

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MSRTC, DHULE

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shelke Shivaji T.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: October 13, 2015

...

PER COURT :-

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court

dated 23.12.2011, by which, his Complaint (ULP) No.19 of 2011 has been

dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment of the

Industrial Court dated 29.10.2013 by which his Revision (ULP) No.10 of 2012

has been dismissed.

2.

Shri Shelke learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously submits

that the petitioner who was a Driver, appointed in 2003, was unjustifiably

charged with having committed misconducts on 21.1.2006 at about 12.45

Hrs. (Post Noon) at the Akkalkuwa S.T. Depot. He was charged with

drunkenness, riotous and disorderly behaviour. It was falsely alleged that he

was drunk and he started pelting stones at the S.T. Depot as well as at the

S.T. Bus Conductors, who were around him. He has abused another Bus-

Conductor and a Driver.

3.

He submits that the petitioner denied all the charges levelled upon

WP/10198/2015

2

him by his reply dated 7.2.2007. He has explained that after his duty was

concluded on 21.1.2006 and since he had done double duty for almost an

entire week, his health had weakened and he had consumed medicine. He

was feeling giddy and was unable to walk because of his weakness and the

medicines consumed.

4.

He submits that the enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Office

has wrongly concluded that the petitioner was under the influence of

liquor. There was no evidence that he had misbehaved with any passenger

during any journey or that he had endangered the lives of the passengers.

5.

He submits that the petitioner had not consumed liquor, but had

consumed a medicine by name “Drakshasav”. Considering his clean and

unblemished past service record, the respondent should have given an

opportunity to the petitioner to improve his conduct and reform himself.

6.

Shri Shelke further submits that though the respondent suggested

through its written statement that the petitioner has indulged in riotous

and disorderly behaviour, the same is not sustainable as the petitioner has

never committed such mis-conducts. He further submits that the enquiry

was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. He further submits that the

Industrial Court lost sight of the perversity that crept into the judgment of

the Labour Court and has dismissed the Revision Petition.

7.

I have considered the submissions of Shri Shelke and have gone

WP/10198/2015

3

through the petition paper book with his assistance.

8.

It has been observed by the Labour Court that the petitioner

participated in the enquiry and had engaged a Defense Representative

(D.R.) With the assistance of the D.R., he participated in the enquiry and

cross-examined the management witnesses as well as the victim. He led his

evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court, therefore, did not

find any ground to conclude that the Enquiry was conducted in non-

adherence to the principles of natural justice.

9.

The Labour Court has also considered the oral and documentary

evidence recorded in the enquiry. The Conductor who was abused has also

deposed in the enquiry and he was cross-examined by the petitioner. There

was no element of animosity between the petitioner and the corporation.

The Labour Court noticed that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer

were based on the evidence recorded in the enquiry.

10.

The Industrial Court, within its limited revisional jurisdiction, has

once again visited the oral and documentary evidence recorded in the

enquiry. Considering the same, it came to a conclusion that neither has the

petitioner demons