Case title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF 2017
Dated: April 18, 2024
Quorum: Justice Sandeep V Marne
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case revolve around the petition against the judgement and order dated February 12, 2016, issued by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune, had been abandoned by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC).
The labour court’s judgement and order from March 25, 2014, which increased the amount of back pay from 25% to 100%, are accepted, and the respondent-employee is granted permission. As a result, the Industrial Court has ordered that 100% of back pay be paid from April 29, 1995, to the day of superannuation or reinstatement, whichever comes first.
Since November 23, 1978, Mr. Dattatraya Ganpat, the respondent, has worked for MSRTC as a driver. He was sent to the Baramati Depot on January 17, 1991, from the Rajgurunagar Depot, but he failed to report for work there.
The allegations of an unapproved leave of absence from work beginning on January 17, 1991, were made in a memo of chargesheet filed on April 5, 1991. On January 18, 1991, another chargesheet was released, this one accusing the respondent of invading the MSRTC land at Manchar.
The Industrial Court, Pune, issued a judgement and order on February 12, 2016, in Revision (ULP) No.60/2014. MSRTC has since abandoned the current appeal objecting to this ruling. The Industrial Court’s decision to reject Revision Application (ULP) No. 28/2014 was not contested by MSRTC, as was previously noted. As a result, the Industrial Court’s decision to raise the backpay amount from 25% to 100% is the sole object of contention in this case.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner’s attorney argues that the Industrial Court erred in giving the Respondent 100% back pay even though it was acknowledged that the employee had been absent from work for a considerable amount of time.
That the Respondent disregarded the transfer order that was issued on January 17, 1991, and that as a result, the Respondent neglected to report for duty at Baramati Depot both during the investigation and until the chargesheet was issued. He was rightfully fired from his job due to an excessively lengthy absence, and the Industrial Court erred in giving him a 100% back pay award.
It was further argued that the Industrial Court’s justifications for accepting the Respondent’s Revision are illogical. that since MSRTC is a non-profit organisation, it cannot be held accountable for paying back wages for the lengthy period of time between 29 April 1995 and 30 June 2008, the day the respondent reached superannuation. The attorneys appealed for the Industrial Court’s order to be overturned.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The petition would be opposed by the knowledgeable attorney representing the Respondent, who would stand by the Industrial Court’s decision and order in the Revision. He would argue that the Petitioner has not even provided a copy of the Order and Judgement from the Revision that was passed on February 12, 2016. He would argue that since the Revision’s rejection is not being contested, the reinstatement directive is not being contested in the current case.
The attorney claims that since the reinstatement directive is uncontested, the award of 100% back pay following the termination order’s ruling of unlawfulness cannot be contested. The attorney will argue that MSRTC has victimised the respondent. Because in order to build the bus stand in Mansar, the Respondent’s ancestral land had to be acquired. that the disagreement between MSRTC and the respondent’s father regarding the occupation of a shed next to the bus station was the true reason for the victimisation of the respondent.
Regarding that shed, the father of the respondent initiated a lawsuit against MSRTC and was successful in it. Due to the disagreement, the Respondent suffered from unlawful harassment. Medical certificates have been produced as a proper explanation for the respondent’s absence. The respondent’s spouse had been dealing with a kidney issue since 1985 and was receiving ongoing therapy. a procedure that she had on November 14, 1994. The Respondent’s absence has been properly justified in these circumstances.
Besides, the absence wasn’t lengthy enough to result in the harsh consequence of being fired from the company. It would be the respondents’ prayer that the petition would be denied.
COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that the respondent was moved from Rajgurunagar Depot to Baramati Depot by an order dated January 17, 1991, and was freed on the same day in the MSRTC matter. As a result, MSRTC charged Respondent with violating the transfer order by failing to report for duty at Baramati.
It was acknowledged that the Respondent did not report for duty until the chargesheet was issued on April 5, 1991. It seems that the Respondent neglected to report for duty for the duration of the disciplinary proceedings as well.
The court determined that this was clear from the Respondent’s allegations in his complaint, which stated that the Enquiry Offer did not recognise the absence until September 1993. Thus, it can be seen that the respondent was consistently missing from January 17, 191, to September 1993.
Because of this, the absence of more than two and a half years cannot be dismissed as insignificant or coincidental. Due to MSRTC’s inability to produce its Offer/Witness for cross-examination, the Labour Court has overturned the dismissal penalty and ordered reinstatement. Because of this, the Labour Court has decided to overturn the dismissal penalty due to the actions of the implicated MSRTC.
The court observed that given the length of time that elapsed between 25 April 1995 and 30 June 2008 and the Respondent’s extended leave of absence from the workforce, it would be reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances of the case to pay 50% back wages. For the purposes of retirement benefits, however, the interim time will be considered as duty.
The judgement and order dated 25 March 2014 by the Labour Court of Pune was modified by this court to the extent that the Petitioner shall pay the Respondent 50% of the back wages from the date of termination until the date of reinstatement or the date of superannuation, whichever is earlier. The judgement and order dated 12 February 2016 by the Industrial Court of Pune in the Revision is set aside.
In the end, the court declared that the Writ Petition is partially accepted with the aforementioned directives. A portion of the rule is rendered absolute.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
