JUDGMENT
P.R. Borkar, J.
1. This is a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nasik in Revision Application (ULP) No. 332 of 1995 on 12.12.1996, whereby the order passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No. 64 of 1994 on 26.7.1995 was set aside.
2. The Labour Court upheld dismissal of present respondent by order dated 11.5.1994 and directed the present petitioner to pay the respondent all terminal dues, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. However, prayer for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service was rejected. The Industrial Court, Nasik set aside the said order and held that the petitioner Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 1 (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Maharashtra Act of 1971”) and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 50 per cent backwages.
3. In this case by order dated 26.7.1995 the Labour Court while deciding preliminary issues held that the respondent employee failed to prove that enquiry held against him was against the principles of natural justice and that the findings of Enquiry Officer were perverse. Having answered these two questions in favour of the employer the Labour Court by judgment dated 26.7.1995 came to the conclusion that the Corporation has proved the charges. It has not indulged in unfair labour practice and thus passed the orders stated above. In para 6 of its judgment the Labour Court narrated the facts of the case, which are as follows:
When the Inspector checked the passengers for their tickets and also the weigh-bill, ticket tray and the cash in the money bag of the conductor, following irregularities were noticed : (1) One passenger who was travelling from Kakarpada to Shirsole had paid his full fare, but had been issued a used ticket of the previous trip (2) two and half passengers travelling from Sawarpada to Jamzira were found issued two tickets of 1.20 though the tickets were used tickets from the previous trip. (3) one passenger from Hanumantpada to Shirsole was issued a used tickets after collecting the full fare from him. (4) an amount of Rs. 11.30 was found to be unexplained, cash excess in the money bag. (5) Inspection of the money bag also disclosed that it contained one ticket of 90 paise, five tickets of Rs. 1.50, one ticket of Rs. 1.80, three tickets of Rs. 5.60 and one ticket of Rs. 1.20, all of which were used tickets which had been punched with an appropriate entry and exit stage numbers (6) the way-bill had not been properly filled up and when explanation was sought from the petitioner, he refused to give an explanation and (7) the way bill had not been properly filled up and the punching of tickets was also wrong. Detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer-cum-Competent Authority who found the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. Though the petitioner was in service for 18 years, it had been noticed that on two similar occasions he had been indulged in an identical misconduct of re-issuing used tickets and pocketing the money. Considering all the circumstances, the competent authority of the first respondent decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dt. 25.1.86.
(Note : Emphasis is supplied)
4. The Labour Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that as the proved misconducts are serious, Item 1 (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Act of 1971 is not attracted. It may be noted that in the facts narrated above it is mentioned that on two similar occasions the present respondent had indulged in identical misconduct of issuing used tickets and pocketing money.
5. The Industrial Court has mainly discussed the case of P.K. Wani v. D.C.M.S.R.T.C. Dhule 1995 I CLR 1052 and came to the conclusion that the misconduct proved against delinquent was of minor and technical nature. He observed that the employee involved in the case cited had indulged in similar misconduct on two occasions. However the present respondent had put in clean service of 17 years and as such the punishment of dismissal was harsh. No chargesheet was served upon him during the period of 17 years. However, he missed the observations made by the Enquiry Officer that on two previous occasions the present respondent had issued used tickets to the passengers.
6. Apart from it, the recent trend, particularly during past five years in various cases of the Supreme Court is that such acts of misappropriation and corruption should be viewed very seriously. One of such cases is U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh Pal 2006 AIR SCW 4903. I quote the observations made in latter part of para 7 and in para 8 of the said judgment.
7. …It is unfortunate that the petitioner was appointed in 1988 and in the first year of service he started indulging in malpractice then what can be expected from him in the future. If this is the state of affair in the first year of service and if such persons are allowed to let off to the light punishment then this will be a wrong signal to the other persons similarly situated. Therefore, in such cases the incumbent should be weeded out as fast as possible and same has been upheld by the Labour Court. We are firmly of the view that such instances should not be dealt with lightly so as to pollute the atmosphere in the Corporation and other co-workers.
8. Normally, courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shocking disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to abuse of the process of court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give a wrong signal in the Society. All the State Road Transport Corporations in the country have gone in red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbents, therefore, it is the time that misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently.
7 Same view is taken in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. . It is observed therein that the Bus conductor was found carrying ticketless passengers and certain old and used tickets were recovered from him. It was held that such gross misconduct/dereliction of duty on his part could not be dealt with leniently. It is also held that Bus conductor is a person who deals with public money and acts in fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. The order of the High Court setting aside dismissal as disproportionate without indicating reasons merely on grounds that State suffered loss of Rs. 16/- only held amounting to non-application of mind.
8. I may also refer to the case of Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. A.T. Mane AIR 2004 SC 4761 and V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. .
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the learned Member, Industrial Court has failed to appreciate the things in proper perspective. He should not have interfered with the order passed by the Labour Court.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 12.12.1986 passed by the Industrial Court is hereby set aside and the order dated 26.7.1995 passed by the Labour Court is confirmed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.