Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 20.3.1998 which modified the Labour Court's order. The respondent no.1, Ghanshyam Tarare, was employed as a driver. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him for negligent driving resulting in an accident causing a person's death. He was dismissed from service. He filed a complaint under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that misconduct was not proved and ordered reinstatement with full back wages on 31.8.1995. The Industrial Court, in revision, reversed the finding on negligence, holding that the respondent was negligent and misconduct was proved. However, it found that the person who lost his life also contributed to the accident. Consequently, the Industrial Court granted reinstatement but reduced back wages from 100% to 75%. The High Court noted that after the Industrial Court's order, the respondent was reinstated and had since retired, so the issue of reinstatement lost significance. The court considered that given the Industrial Court's finding of contributory negligence, it was not appropriate to disturb the order reducing back wages. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - Contributory Negligence - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act) - Employee driver dismissed for negligence causing fatal accident - Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages - Industrial Court in revision found negligence proved but also noted contributory negligence by deceased - Reduced back wages to 75% - High Court held that order reducing back wages was appropriate and not disturbed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in reducing back wages from 100% to 75% after finding the employee negligent but also noting contributory negligence by the deceased.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 20.3.1998 which granted reinstatement with 75% back wages.
Law Points
- Industrial Court has power to modify Labour Court orders in revision
- Contributory negligence can be considered in determining quantum of back wages
- Reinstatement with reduced back wages is appropriate when employee is negligent but victim also contributed
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (02) 76
Writ Petition No.3638 of 1998
Mr. S. A. Radke for petitioner, Mr. M. P. Jaiswal for respondent no.1
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bhandara, through its Divisional Controller, Bhandara and Divisional Traffic Office, Divisional Office, M. S. R. T. C. Corporation, Bhandara
Shri Ghanshyam s/o Wasudeorao Tarare and Industrial Court at Nagpur Civil Lines, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court's order modifying Labour Court's order in a service dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (employer) sought to challenge the Industrial Court's order reducing back wages from 100% to 75%.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the Industrial Court's order which granted reinstatement with 75% back wages instead of upholding the dismissal.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court on 31.8.1995 ordered reinstatement with full back wages. Industrial Court on 20.3.1998 modified it to reinstatement with 75% back wages.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in reducing back wages from 100% to 75% after finding the employee negligent but also noting contributory negligence by the deceased.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court's order reducing back wages was not appropriate and should be set aside.
Respondent no.1 argued that the Industrial Court's order was correct and should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
When an employee is found negligent but the victim also contributed to the accident, it is appropriate to reduce back wages from 100% to 75% rather than granting full back wages.
Judgment Excerpts
In my opinion it will not be appropriate to disturb the order of the Industrial Court.
It is common ground before me that after the order of the Industrial Court the respondent no.1 was reinstated in service and he has also retired.
Procedural History
Departmental enquiry initiated against respondent no.1 for negligent driving causing fatal accident. Dismissed from service. Filed complaint under M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act before Labour Court. Labour Court on 31.8.1995 ordered reinstatement with full back wages. Industrial Court on 20.3.1998 modified order to reinstatement with 75% back wages. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court challenging Industrial Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act):
