Bombay High Court dismisses conductor’s appeal against MSRTC

Bombay High Court dismisses conductor’s appeal against MSRTC

Directs the Labor Court to decide the unfair labor practices complaint on merit

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a conductor’s writ petition against the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which had accused the conductor of committing misappropriation.

The single-Judge bench of Justice NJ Jamadar vacated the interim protection granted to him and directed the Labor Court at Kolhapur to decide the unfair labor practices complaint on merits.

The Court referred to the State of Haryana vs Rattan Singh case, wherein it was held that non-examination of passengers was not required to prove the misconduct of a conductor. The findings could not be termed perverse merely for that reason. Seeing the petitioner’s past punishments, the proposed dismissal was not disproportionate.

The Judge ruled, “It is too late to urge that the findings of the inquiry officer can be termed as perverse, merely for non-examination of the passengers from whom the complainant allegedly collected the fare, but did not issue the tickets. The pronouncements also indicate that once misappropriation is established, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. Albeit it should be regarded on circumstances of the case and the past conduct of the delinquent.”

The Judge observed that the lower courts had noted that in addition to the misconduct in question, there were nine other punishments credited to the complainant. Therefore, the proposed retribution could not be termed disproportionate.

Justice Jamadar held, “The Labour Court and the Industrial Court were justified in declining to exercise the discretion in favor of the petitioner.”

The petitioner was working as a conductor with the Corporation since 2006. In 2014, an inspection squad found several discrepancies in his bus. It included accepting the fare from four passengers without issuing them tickets and committing misappropriation. The squad also found the cash balance short by Rs.935.

Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were held against him. After the inquiry report, he was issued a show-cause notice for dismissal.

The conductor filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practices under Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was alleged, inter alia, that his dismissal was prima facie illegal.

Pleading for interim relief, he sought the courts to restrain the respondent from imposing any penalty against him till the final decision. However, the Labor Court and the Industrial Court found that the inquiry was fair, and the findings were not perverse, which led to the petitioner filing the present writ petition.

The issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection during the pendency of the complaint. Since the interim protection was in operation since the filing of the complaint, the Court considered it appropriate to delve into the aspect of entitlement to and continuation of interim protection. This, despite the concurrent decisions holding that the petitioner did not deserve the exercise of discretion.

The petitioner sought interim relief on three grounds - the inquiry was not fair and proper; the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were perverse, and the proposed penalty was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The bench ruled that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court had recorded prima facie findings that the Corporation adhered to the prescriptions in the Discipline and Appeal rules and the principles of natural justice. It held that the complainant was provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing and there was no substance in the contention that the inquiry was unfair.