Tarachand Tarone vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

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

This petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the revision of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called "Corporation"). The Labour Court had reinstated the petitioner who was dismissed by the Corporation on the ground that he had failed to mention the facts regarding his past convictions, which he had suffered five times in 1970 at the time of his entry in the service, though it was so required by the Rules. It is admitted position that the petitioner had not mentioned his convictions in Form "A", which he was required to fill in at the time of his entry in the service. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was in fact convicted five times. On that count, proceedings were taken up against the petitioner. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the punishment awarded was disproportionate and he reinstated the petitioner without any back wages. Against this order, revision came to be filed by the Corporation and the Revisional Court allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Labour Court and maintained dismissal of the petitioner.

The order passed by the Industrial Court is assailed by Shri Trivedi appearing for the petitioner on the ground that firstly in fact the Revisional Court has not taken a correct view of Item No. 30. According to him that Item was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Second ground was that even if the petitioner had suffered convictions and has suppressed the same from the authorities mercy must be shown to the petitioner in view of the fact that from 1970 onwards he had not suffered any other punishment and that he has completed 10 successful years of service. The revisional Court has found that there is a specific warning given in Form ''A'' which suggests that the concerned person must supply full information regarding the past convictions, if any, and if it is found that the person concerned has given incorrect information it would amount to misconduct and would result in dismissal from the service. It is clear that the petitioner has suppressed the information regarding his past conviction. If this be so, his entry in service was bad in law. The argument of Shri Trivedi that item 30 does not apply in case of the petitioner is not correct in view of the clear language of Item 30. The contention of Shri Trivedi such information was not asked by superior officer is not correct. The information was required to be given in Form ''A'' and the authority to which this form was to be submitted was undoubtedly superior to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. The last contention of Shri Trivedi about mercy is also not correct. If such mercy is shown to a person who has been convicted five times for gambling, it would be mercy shown to an undeserving person. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.