-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.6113 OF 1997
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation having his office at
Vahatuk Bhavan, Bellasis Road,
Bombay Central, Bombay--400 008. : Petitioner
V/s.
1. Shri Manikrao Sahabrao Chavan,
Malegaon (BK) Baramati, Pune.
2. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Pune. : Respondents
...
Mr.G.S.Hegde for the petitioner.
Mr.Kiran S. Bapat for respondent no.1.
...
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 21, 2009.
ORAL JUDGEMENT:
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the
Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune, setting aside
the respondent no.1’s dismissal and directing payment of
back wages at the rate of 50% from 8.6.1992 till
31.5.1996.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:16:03 :::
-: 2 :-
2. The respondent no.1 was charged with driving after
having consumed alcohol. It may be noted that consumption
of alcohol by a Driver is a stated misconduct vide clause
42 of the Acts of Misconducts under Schedule 'A' of the
Discipline and Appeal Procedure for employees of the
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which reads
as follows:-
"SCHEDULE 'A'
(ACTS OF MISCONDUCTS)
42. Found to have consumed or being
alcohol,
ig liquor, intoxicants or any
type of drug while on duty and/or
outside the duty hours within the
premises or vehicles of the
Corporation."
3. The respondent no.1 was found having consumed alcohol
to the extent that the reading in blood-test showed 0.069
mg. The respondent no.1 appeared unable to stand
properly and while reversing the bus which he was
driving, his bus brushed with another bus. The Labour
Court found that the charge of consuming liquor while on
duty was established on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence and also observed that the act amounts to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:16:03 :::
-: 3 :-
indiscipline on the part of the respondent no.1.
However, for some reasons not stated by it in the
judgement, the Labour Court held that the punishment was
shockingly disproportionate.
4. Mr.Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that in the circumstances of this case,
punishment could not have been held to be shockingly
disproportionate. According to the learned counsel, the
Labour Court lost sight of the fact that the driver is
responsible for the safety of the lives of many
passengers and also others on the road; in fact, the
Discipline
and Appeal Rules take a serious view of such
misconduct. Mr.Bapat, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1, submitted that the view of the Labour
Court is a plausible view which need not be interfered
with.
5. Having considered the submissions, I am of view that
the order of the Labour Court which treats the punishment
as shockingly disproportionate is liable to be interfered
with. The proportionality of a punishment is best left
to the employer in such cases. Indeed, it is the
employer who knows how to best assess the possible
consequences of a particular misconduct and, where the
safety and lives of passengers is concerned, the employer
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:16:03 :::
-: 4 :-
would be the best judge to determine whether the present
misconduct warrants the punishment of dismissal having
regard to its gravity and the possibility of it
endangering more lives in the future. This, of course,
does not mean that the employer is entitled to form such
an opinion without adequate record. However, once such a
record exists and the misconduct strands proved, it would
not be for the Court to lightly interfere with the
punishment and that too without giving reasons as in the
impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, suffers
from a serious error of law apparent on the face of the
record and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Order
accordingly. The
petitioner shall, however, forthwith
release to the respondent no.1 the legal and permissible
dues, if withheld.
6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
S.A. BOBDE, J.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:16:03 :::