(Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.)
Divisional Traffic Superintendent (Default) Competent Authority Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Sangli, Dist. Sangli _________________________________________________ Appellant;
V.
Mahadeo Shripati Khot _____________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 6285 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24469 of 2019), Decided on September 7, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In December, 1988, the respondent was employed as a Conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. On 31.10.1991 i.e. before the respondent had even completed three years of service, the Ticket Checker found that he had charged Rs. 1.25 paise from a passenger without issuing any ticket to him. The respondent was chargesheeted on the allegation of misappropriation and embezzlement of Corporation’s funds and a departmental enquiry was held against him. The respondent was found guilty of the charges and was consequently dismissed from service.
3. The respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court wherein it was found that the enquiry conducted against him was just and fair. However, considering the “value of the ticket”, it was held by the Labour Court that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the respondent for such a small amount was shockingly disproportionate and consequently, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement but without back wages.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the appellant – Corporation filed a Revision Petition before the Industrial Tribunal at Kohlapur. The Revision Petition was allowed as the Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondent – conductor was not entitled to reinstatement. The respondent’s claim was, thus, rejected in entirety.
5. Now, came the turn of the respondent, who challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of Writ Petition No. 983 of 2002. The High Court, inter alia, took the view that it was a case of complete failure of justice; the charges levelled against the delinquent respondent were on the basis of statement made by a passenger, who wanted to save his own skin as he was travelling without ticket; that there was a contradiction in the statement of the passenger; that there was no cogent material to prove the charges of misappropriation and embezzlement of 1.25 paise; and that no other passenger was examined as a witness. The High Court thus accepted the claim of the respondent – Conductor in the following terms:
“10. Rule is accordingly made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 31 October 2001 and restoring the order of the Labour Court of reinstatement with continuity of service but no back wages. The Respondent – corporation shall, however, pay back wages to the Petitioner with effect from the date of the original order of the Labout Court i.e. from 24 February 1993, and till the date of his superannuation, that is to say, till 31 May 2014, along with all terminal benefits payable to him on the basis of continuous service.”
6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages from 24.02.1993 to 31.05.2014, the appellant – Corporation has approached this Court by way of present appeal.
7. This Court vide order dated 04.10.2019, issued limited notice on the question of back wages and stayed the impugned order passed by the High Court subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the back wages.
8. Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the afore-stated order has been complied with and the requisite amount has been deposited with the Labour Court though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – workman submits that the amount so deposited is inadequate.
9. Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the rival parties at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record.
10. We are of the considered view that the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution has exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction and gone into the disputed question of facts which were effectively determined by the Enquiry Officer and were further approved and affirmed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, respectively. There was no occasion for the High Court to sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence led in a domestic enquiry. It was neither a case of no evidence nor of any pervert findings by the Labour Court and the Labour Tribunal etc. That apart, even if the order of the Industrial Tribunal was to be set aside by the High Court, it could at best restore the order of the Labour Court whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated without back wages. It may be noticed here that the respondent – workman never felt aggrieved and challenged the order of the Labour Court before the Industrial Tribunal or the High Court. The High Court has thus granted the relief of back wages to the respondent which he never agitated before the subordinate forums. However, we are apprised by learned counsel for the respondent that his client attained the age of superannuation in 2014 and is now a senior citizen.
11. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case and also by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between the parties, we deem it appropriate to allow the instant appeal in part in the following terms:
(i) The order of the Labour Court and that of the High Court to the extent of reinstatement of respondent – workman is upheld and maintained.
(ii) The respondent – workman shall not be entitled to any back wages from 24.02.1993 to 31.05.2014 as awarded by the High Court.
(iii) The respondent – workman shall be deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 01.06.2014 and he shall be deemed to have continued in service till that date for the purposes of pension and gratuity only.
(v) The respondent – workman shall be entitled to 50% of arrears of pension from 01.06.2014 till 31.08.2022 and he shall be entitled to full pension with effect from 01.09.2022. Such arrears shall be paid within three months but without any interest.
(vi) The Labour Court shall determine the arrears of pension and gratuity, as directed above, after hearing both the parties, and shall disburse such arrears out of the amount deposited by the appellant – Corporation in compliance of order dated 04.10.2019 of this Court. The excess amount, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant – Corporation. However, if there is any deficiency in such amount, the appellant – Corporation shall deposit the balance amount within a period of two months from the date of determination of such amount by the Labour Court.
(vii) If under the Pension Scheme, there is a provision of employees’ contribution, the amount of such contribution shall also be deducted from the arrears of back wages deposited by the appellant – Corporation with the Labour Court and in the event of any deficiency in this regard, the workman shall make the deficiency good and then only the post-retiral benefits as limited above, shall be released.
12. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
———
