Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) dismissed its employee, Pandurang Trimbak Dusane, on 30 June 1989 after a departmental inquiry found him responsible for an accident causing damage of Rs.25,000. The first appeal was rejected, but the second appellate authority partly allowed the appeal on 21 August 1990, directing a fresh appointment without continuity of service. The employee accepted the order and joined duties the same day, but later filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Complaint ULP No.97/1991) challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement with continuity and full backwages. The Labour Court, by order dated 15 May 1993, set aside the enquiry on the ground that the findings were perverse as they were not based on evidence. By final judgment dated 15 June 1995, the complaint was allowed, granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages except for the period from 30 June 1989 to 11 April 1991. The MSRTC challenged this order by way of writ petition. The High Court noted that the employee had already superannuated on 30 April 2001. The court held that the Labour Court was correct in setting aside the dismissal due to perverse findings, and that the employee's acceptance of the fresh appointment did not estop him from challenging the dismissal. However, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Krishan Niwas (AIR 1997 SC 2349), the court held that backwages are not automatic upon reinstatement and the employee must plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed. Since the employee had not made such a pleading, the grant of full backwages was unsustainable. The court modified the Labour Court's order by deleting the direction for backwages, while upholding the reinstatement with continuity of service. The petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal - Perverse Findings - Enquiry Officer's findings not based on evidence are perverse - Labour Court set aside dismissal on ground that findings were not based on evidence recorded - Held that such findings are perverse and justify setting aside the dismissal (Paras 7-8). B) Service Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - Not automatic - Employee must plead and prove unemployment - Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Niwas held that backwages are not automatic and employee must show he was not gainfully employed - Held that Labour Court's grant of full backwages without such pleading is unsustainable (Paras 2, 8-9). C) Service Law - Estoppel - Acceptance of fresh appointment - Does not bar challenge to dismissal - Employee accepted fresh appointment under protest and filed complaint - Held that acceptance does not create estoppel against challenging the earlier dismissal (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in granting reinstatement with full backwages after setting aside the dismissal order, and whether the employee's acceptance of a fresh appointment order precludes him from challenging the dismissal.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The Labour Court's order granting reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld, but the direction for payment of full backwages was set aside. The employee was not entitled to backwages as he had not pleaded or proved that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period.
Law Points
- Acceptance of fresh appointment does not estop employee from challenging dismissal
- Enquiry findings perverse if not based on evidence
- Backwages not automatic upon reinstatement
- Employee must plead and prove unemployment
