The High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Court order upholding dismissal of a bus conductor for fare collection misconduct, finding no perversity.
Time of two weeks granted to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-NAG:11860
912-wp-6168-24.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition (WP) No. 6168 of 2024
Ms. Shila D/o Ashok Naik
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport Cooporation through Divisional Traffic Superintendent, Nagpur
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order
Shri C.V.Jagdale, Advocate a/w Mrs. M.V.Chindholkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S.Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 15th OCTOBER, 2024.
This petition takes exception to the order dated 30th August, 2024 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision (ULP) No. 49 of 2023.
SKNair
2 912-wp-6168-24.odt
found guilty of misconduct issued notice to show cause, why she should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said show cause notice had filed the complaint before the Labour Court. By order dated 13th January, 2023, the learned Labour Court held that the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent was not fair and proper, and permitted the parties to adduce the evidence. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned labour Court by order dated 8th May, 2023 dismissed the complaint filed by the present petitioner.
“14. From above oral and documentary evidence of respondent, it is made out that when the bus of complainant was checked, there were 5 passengers and 12 pass holders and out of 5 passengers, 1 passenger travelling from Ramtek to Mansar was without ticket of denomination of Rs.10/-. It is also made out that
SKNair
912-wp-6168-24.odt
3
complainant had neither collected any fare from said passenger nor issued any ticket to him. It appears that the bus was checked at the Mansar, where said without ticket passenger was about to alight the bus after completion of his journey. Thus, it is made out that no ticket was issued to him till the completion of his journey to destination. It is also made out that the bus was not crowded as only 17 passengers were present in the bus, whereas the capacity thereof is of more than 60 passengers. From the inspection report at Exh.C-7 it appears that said bus departed from Ramtek at about 18:21:17. The first inspection report was obtained from ETI machine at about 18:30:12. Thus, it appears that there was time gap of about 9 minutes in between the departure of bus and checking thereof at the Mansar. The time of about 8 to 9 minutes appears to be sufficient to issue ticket to 5 passengers. So far entry of pass holders is concerned, it is the case of complainant herself that the entries of said 12 pass holders were not made in ETI machine on account of low charging. Had it been the case that complainant had made entries of pass holders in ETI machine, then there would have been ground to deduce that considerable time was consumed in making the entries of pass holders and therefore, the ticket could not be issued to concerned without ticket passengers. But it is not the case.”
“26. …. So far past service record of the complainant is concerned, respondent produced the Default Card of complainant at Exh.C-3/9. Therefrom it is made out that in past she was punished for about four times for similar misconduct of not issuing tickets and not collecting fare amount. Since complainant did not enter into witness box to state about her past service record,
SKNair
4 912-wp-6168-24.odt
the said Default Card wherein the punishments imposed upon her are shown, has to be considered as it went unchallenged. Such Default Card shows that complainant is habitual in committing similar misconduct. It is not the first instance. That apart, she was also penalised for different misconducts committed for about 20 occasions. There are about 25 entries of various punishments in said Default Card which were imposed on her. Thus, her past service record is extremely blemished.”
SKNair
5 912-wp-6168-24.odt
evidence. It is submitted that no interference is thus called for in the impugned judgments and orders.
SKNair
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 30th August 2024 of the learned Industrial Court is perverse warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
Whether sufficient time should be granted to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ms. Shila D/o Ashok Naik
Maharashtra State Road Transport Cooporation
N.R.BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
