Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Bapu Kamble, was employed as a driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (respondent) since 2011 with an unblemished record. On 4 December 2016, while driving an ST bus on the Rashiwade to Rankala route, near village Vashi, a motorcyclist dashed head-on into the bus, resulting in the motorcyclist's death. The petitioner was immediately suspended on 5 December 2016 without enquiry. The respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry and concluded that the petitioner was responsible for the accident. On 13 January 2017, a charge-sheet was issued alleging misconduct under clauses 10, 15, and 22 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure for rash and negligent driving. A departmental enquiry was held between 18 January 2017 and 21 January 2017, and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent dismissed the petitioner from service on 31 January 2017. The petitioner challenged the dismissal by filing Complaint (ULP) No.31 of 2017 before the Labour Court, Kolhapur, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on 30 October 2018, holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the dismissal was justified. The petitioner filed Revision (ULP) No.20 of 2019 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, which was dismissed on 30 November 2022, upholding the Labour Court's findings. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the accident was caused solely by the motorcyclist who dashed into the bus, and that the respondent failed to consider the criminal court's acquittal in the related criminal case. The respondent contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly, the petitioner participated, and the concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed. The High Court held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of perversity or jurisdictional error. The court noted that the Labour Court and Industrial Court had concurrently found the petitioner guilty of misconduct based on evidence, including the panchnama and the petitioner's own admission of the accident. The court found no perversity in the findings and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate; interference is warranted only if the subordinate court's decision is perverse, based on no evidence, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is wholly unsupported by material on record. (Paras 7-8) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Dismissal for Misconduct - The Labour Court and Industrial Court concurrently found that the employee-driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving causing a fatal accident, based on evidence including panchnama, statements, and the employee's own admission of the accident. The dismissal was held to be justified and not an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence - Appreciation - Concurrent Findings - Where two fact-finding courts have concurrently held the employee guilty of misconduct, the High Court under Article 227 will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The employee's contention that the accident was caused by the motorcyclist was not supported by any evidence, and the courts below correctly relied on the employer's preliminary report and panchnama. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court's judgment upholding the Labour Court's dismissal of the employee's complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, suffers from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that the dismissal was justified.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
- Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure
- Clauses 10
- 15
- 22
