Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Ravindra Adhar Gosavi, joined the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) as a driver in 1990 and was later promoted to Assistant Traffic Inspector. On 27.10.2014, he was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.10,000 from one Shri S.S. Dhivare, a driver involved in an accident, in exchange for cancelling a dismissal notice. A charge sheet dated 02.08.2014 was issued, and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer held the charges proved, and the Corporation dismissed the respondent on 20.01.2016. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 01/2017 before the Labour Court, Dhule, which set aside the dismissal order and directed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Corporation's revision before the Industrial Court, Dhule, was dismissed on 06.08.2022. The Corporation then filed the present writ petition. The key legal issue was whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in setting aside the dismissal. The High Court noted that in the domestic enquiry, the Corporation failed to examine the complainant, Shri Dhivare, who was a material witness. Only an officer who recorded statements was examined. The Court held that non-examination of the complainant vitiated the enquiry, as the respondent was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the key witness. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The Court upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, dismissing the writ petition. The decision reinforces the principle that a domestic enquiry must be fair and that failure to examine material witnesses renders the enquiry invalid, entitling the employee to reinstatement with back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Non-examination of Complainant - Vitiated Enquiry - The failure to examine the complainant (Shri Dhivare) in a domestic enquiry for misconduct of demanding illegal gratification renders the enquiry invalid, as the complainant is a material witness whose evidence is essential for a fair enquiry. (Paras 4-6) B) Industrial Law - Punishment - Proportionality - Dismissal for Corruption - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Where the domestic enquiry is vitiated, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate, and the employee is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, as the employer failed to prove the charges in a valid enquiry. (Paras 7-10) C) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Sections 30, 31 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Complaint (ULP) - The Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under the MRTU & PULP Act to set aside the illegal dismissal order and grant relief of reinstatement with back wages. (Paras 1, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement with full back wages when the domestic enquiry was allegedly vitiated due to non-examination of the complainant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The dismissal order was set aside, and the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service from 20.01.2016.
Law Points
- Domestic enquiry
- Non-examination of complainant
- Vitiated enquiry
- Proportionality of punishment
- Reinstatement with back wages
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
