Bhaurao Petkar vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Others

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Heard. Rule returnable forthwith.

A dismissed conductor of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "corporation") has challenged the two orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. The petitioner was working as a conductor at the relevant time and it was found during one of the checking''s that he had failed to issue tickets to three passengers. Secondly he had not charged one passenger who was carrying about more than 300 Kgs. of luggage and thirdly his cash box included Rs. 120.70 excess cash. The Labour Court took the view that this amounted to playing fraud against Corporation and considering that he had joined the services of the Corporation 15 months prior to the incident confirmed his dismissal. The petitioner had not challenged the enquiry before the Labour Court. Probably the only point which was effectively carried was regarding the quantum of punishment. However, on that count the Labour Court did not agree with the petitioner and ordered his dismissal. The Industrial Court before whom revision was filed was also of the view that the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. The Industrial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that it was within a short span of time of that the petitioner had engaged himself in such kind of activity by which he defrauded the Corporation.

Shri Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the earlier service record of the petitioner was unblemished. However, that fact has been considered by both the Courts below. Considering short span of his service, its cleanliness can not give any credit to the petitioner. The facts that the petitioner failed to recover fare from three passengers, ignored the excess luggage and further was found with excess amount of Rs. 120.70 p. go long way to show that he has no more remained clean. In view of this, the punishment of dismissal was justified. Both the Courts below were right to come to that finding. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.