Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pandurang Gangaramji Karhale, was employed as a bus conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) since 1990. On 25 May 2008, during a surprise check, he was alleged to have resold used tickets. A chargesheet was issued on 18 June 2008, and after a departmental enquiry, a show cause notice proposing dismissal was issued on 12 November 2008. The petitioner challenged this notice by filing Complaint ULP No. 240/2008 before the Labour Court, Nanded, but his interim relief application was rejected. He was ultimately dismissed from service on 21 September 2012. He then filed Complaint ULP No. 64/2012 challenging the dismissal. The Labour Court, by a Part-I judgment dated 9 May 2013, held that the enquiry was vitiated and the findings were perverse, and granted the respondent an opportunity to conduct a de novo enquiry. The respondent MSRTC filed Revision ULP No. 174/2013 before the Industrial Court, which was allowed on 21 August 2014, setting aside the Labour Court's order and upholding the dismissal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and found that the Industrial Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence. The High Court noted that the Labour Court's finding of a vitiated enquiry was not supported by the record, as the enquiry officer had given cogent reasons. The High Court also held that the punishment of dismissal for reselling used tickets was proportionate and not shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Industrial Court's Power to Interfere - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 44 - The Industrial Court, in revision, can re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings of the Labour Court if they are perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the Industrial Court correctly found that the Labour Court's conclusion of a vitiated enquiry was not supported by evidence and that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct of reselling used tickets (Paras 1-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in allowing the revision and upholding the dismissal of the petitioner despite the Labour Court's finding that the enquiry was vitiated and perverse.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The Industrial Court's order dated 21.08.2014 in Revision ULP No. 174/2013 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Industrial Court's revisional jurisdiction
- Labour Court's power to order de novo enquiry
- proportionality of punishment for misconduct of reselling used tickets
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 25
Writ Petition No. 2514 of 2015
Mr. Mukund P. Ambekar alongwith Mrs. M.D. Thube Mhase for petitioner; Mr. A.D. Wange for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
Pandurang Gangaramji Karhale
State of Maharashtra (deleted), M.S.R.T.C., Parbhani Division, through its Divisional Controller, and M.S.R.T.C., Parbhani Division, through its Divisional Traffic Superintendent (DFL)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order upholding dismissal of a bus conductor for misconduct.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order dated 21.08.2014 and restore the Labour Court's order granting de novo enquiry.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was dismissed from service for reselling used tickets; Labour Court held enquiry vitiated and ordered de novo enquiry, but Industrial Court reversed and upheld dismissal.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court's Part-I judgment dated 09.05.2013 in Complaint ULP No. 64/2012 held enquiry vitiated and findings perverse, granted opportunity for de novo enquiry. Industrial Court in Revision ULP No. 174/2013 dated 21.08.2014 allowed revision and upheld dismissal.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in allowing the revision and setting aside the Labour Court's order for de novo enquiry.
Whether the punishment of dismissal for reselling used tickets is proportionate.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Labour Court correctly found the enquiry vitiated and perverse, and the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.
Respondent MSRTC argued that the Labour Court's findings were not supported by evidence and the Industrial Court rightly re-appreciated the evidence and upheld the dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, can re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings of the Labour Court if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The punishment of dismissal for reselling used tickets is proportionate and not shockingly disproportionate.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of Industrial Court dated 21.08.2014 by which Revision ULP No. 174/2013 filed by the respondent MSRTC has been allowed and the dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld.
The Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was vitiated and the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse.
The Industrial Court, in revision, can re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings of the Labour Court if they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Procedural History
Petitioner joined MSRTC as bus conductor in 1990. On 25.05.2008, surprise check alleged resale of used tickets. Chargesheet dated 18.06.2008, reply on 20.06.2008. Show cause notice dated 12.11.2008 proposing dismissal. Petitioner filed Complaint ULP No. 240/2008 challenging show cause notice; interim relief rejected. Dismissal order dated 21.09.2012. Petitioner filed Complaint ULP No. 64/2012; Labour Court Part-I judgment dated 09.05.2013 held enquiry vitiated, granted de novo enquiry. Respondent filed Revision ULP No. 174/2013; Industrial Court allowed revision on 21.08.2014, upheld dismissal. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2514 of 2015, which was dismissed on 09.02.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 44
