JUDGMENT
R.S. Mohite, J.
1. Heard Shri Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. None is present for the respondent.
2. The petitioner challenges an order dated 12-3-1991 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Revision (ULPN) No. 45 of 1990. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) That the respondent was employed with the petitioner Corporation as a driver. On 2-4-1987, he was driving a bus of the petitioner Corporation at a very slow speed near S.T. Bus Stand, Wardha. While so driving the bus, one old woman came under the right front wheel of the bus and died instantly.
(b) On 24-6-1987, on the basis of the aforesaid incident, two charges were framed under Clauses 10 and 11 of Scheduled ‘A’ to the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which are the rules governing discipline and appeals. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid Clauses 10 and 11 are reproduced hereinunder :
“10. Indiscipline
11. Gross negligence resulting in serious loss to the Corporation or inconvenience to the public or both.”
(c) In the departmental enquiry which was conducted, the Enquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of both charges.
(d) On 19-5-1988, the respondent came to be served with an order of dismissal on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer. By the said order, the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 21-5-1988.
(e) The respondent then filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULPN) No. 411 of 1988 in the IIIrd Labour Court at Nagpur, alleging an unfair labour practice. The said complaint was filed under section 28 read with Item Nos. 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Maharashtra Unfair Labour Practices Act.
(f) The said complaint came to be dismissed by the IIIrd Labour Court, Nagpur, by a judgment and order dated 7-2-1990.
(g) On 12-3-1991, Revision filed by the respondent bearing Revision (ULPN) No. 45 of 1990, came to be allowed by the member, Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 12-3-1991, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Shri Wankhede, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and on the facts of the case, ought to have come to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of indiscipline and was also guilty of gross negligence, causing inconvenience to the public.
4. On perusing the record, it is clear that the Labour Court gave no finding whatsoever on the question of indiscipline. In the entire judgment of the Labour Court, there is no reference to charge 10. The Labour Court restricted itself to the finding that the respondent was negligent. While doing so, it made no reference to the statements of eye-witnesses. The version given by them was relied upon by the Revisional Court to come to the conclusion that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of the respondent.
5. Be that as it may, mere negligence was not a misconduct under the concerned rules. As can be seen from the definition of misconduct, the negligence has to be a gross negligence which results in a serious loss to the corporation or inconvenience to the public or both. In the present case, there is nothing to show that any serious loss was caused to the Corporation. Admittedly, the bus was not damaged in the incident. There is no finding to show that there was inconvenience to the public. There is no evidence led to show that any inconvenience was caused to any member of the public. The Revisional Court has come to the finding that there was no indiscipline negligence as the bus was being driven in slow speed and there was nothing to show that it was driven in violation of any rule. The Court has also concluded on the basis of the statements of eye-witnesses that there was no negligence, let alone gross negligence.
6. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find that the judgment and order impugned is so perverse as would warrant interference in the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As a result, writ petition fails and rule stands discharged.