Dismissed

Jivan Bhujangrao Bharti v. M S R T C Beed and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2016WP/7119/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a bus conductor for drinking alcohol on duty. The Court held that no interference was warranted regarding the findings of fact or the proportionality of the punishment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the rule was discharged.

What the court decided

Jivan Bhujangrao Bharti Vs M S R T C Beed and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7119 OF 2006

¶4

Jivan s/o Bhujangrao Bharti, Age48 years, OccuNil, R/o Krishna Nagar, Tq.ParliVaijnath, Dist.Beed PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

M.S.R.T.Corporation, Beed Division, Beed, Through its Divisional Controller

¶7

The Divisional Transport Superintendent (Offence) M.S.R.T.C. Beed RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.B.R.Survase, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Dhongade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 16/12/2016

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 23/11/2006 by which Complaint (ULP) No.33/2004 has been dismissed. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 03/07/2007 by which his Revision (ULP) No.52/2006 has been dismissed.

¶12

This petition was admitted by this Court on 13/03/2008.

¶13

khs/DEC.2016/7119d

¶14

¶15

Mr.Survase, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that in the 22 years of service of the petitioner as a Bus Conductor, the charge of consuming alcohol while on duty has been levelled for the first time. He further submits that he cannot be held guilty of being intoxicated while on duty since medical tests, as required by medical science for proving presence of alcohol in the body of an individual, were not conducted. Placing reliance upon the medical examination by a doctor cannot be the basis of the conclusion that the petitioner was intoxicated. He further submits that an incompetent authority has conducted the enquiry under the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the Corporation.

¶16

Mr.Dhongade, learned Advocate for the respondent/ Corporation has supported the judgments of the Industrial Court.

¶17

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

¶18

and have gone through the record available.

¶19

By the part I judgment dated 10/10/2006, the Labour Court concluded that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not vitiated and the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be termed as being perverse. Based on the said conclusions, the Labour Court, khs/DEC.2016/7119d

¶20

¶21

thereafter proceeded to consider whether the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. By the judgment dated 23/11/2006, the Labour Curt concluded that the punishment awarded was commensurate and an employee, who is intoxicated or is under the influence of liquor, cannot be kept in employment.

¶22

The petitioner filed Revision (ULP) before the Industrial Court and challenged the PartI as well as the PartII judgment. The Industrial Court revisited the entire record and proceedings before the Labour Court and concluded that the enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated since the principles of natural justice were followed.

¶23

In so far as the findings of the Enquiry Officer are concerned, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court relied upon the report of the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Shirur, Dist.Pune when the petitioner was subjected to medical examination since the bus was halted at Shirur. After examining the petitioner, the doctor opined that the petitioner's mouth and breath were smelling of alcohol, he was unable to speak properly and was incoherent, he was not able to maintain his physical balance and was swaying when he walked. He further opined that petitioner's eyes demonstrated that

¶24

khs/DEC.2016/7119d

¶25

¶26

he had consumed alcohol.

¶27

In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court. The petitioner has not pointed out any such factor which would convince me to upset these findings on facts.

¶28

In so far as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, there can be no dispute that reporting for duties by consuming alcohol cannot be termed as being a minor misconduct. So also, the petitioner was punished on 8 occasions in the past for different misconducts. The past blemished service record is therefore an aggregating factor.

¶29

It is informed that the petitioner has been paid his retiral dues as well as gratuity. He has withdrawn his provident fund accumulations.

¶30

Considering the above, this petition being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶31

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶32

khs/DEC.2016/7119d

Jivan Bhujangrao Bharti v. M S R T C Beed and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jivan Bhujangrao Bharti v. M S R T C Beed and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhule Agrilcultural Produce Market Committee. Vs Dnyaneshwar Gangaram Shendage and Others.

Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Vs Ganesh D.Fulpagare and Others.

Dhule Agril.Produce Market Committee and Another. Vs Bhagwan Laxman Deware and Others.

Rajendra Narayan Pawar Vs Msrtc through Its Divisional Controller and Anothers

Nana Barku Gaikwad Vs Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Vithal Eknath Bade Vs the Executive Engineer Maharashtra Water Utilization Project Division Division No 2 Ahmednagar