Partly allowed¶30

Datta Shankar Shinde v. the General Manager

Bombay HC17 Sept 2025WP/4402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BEST bus conductor dismissed for 22 days' absenteeism reinstated under BEST's Circular dated 14 August 2025 despite not filing departmental appeal; dismissal held unwarranted penalty; reinstatement within 8 weeks without backwages, no continuity of service, but intervening period counted for retirement benefits including gratuity, subject to medical fitness test; Bombay HC WP No. 4402 of 2024 (Sandeep V. Marne, J., 17 September 2025), petition partly allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Industrial Court dated 14 September 2022 and the Labour Court dated 17 November 2021 modified: Petitioner to be reinstated in service within 8 weeks without backwages, subject to clearing a medical fitness test; intervening period from dismissal till reinstatement computed only for retirement benefits, including gratuity.

Datta Shankar Shinde vs the General Manager — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the benefit of the reinstatement policy introduced by Circular dated 14 August 2025 can be denied to the Petitioner because he did not file a departmental appeal against the dismissal order. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The benefit of Circular dated 14 August 2025 cannot be denied to the Petitioner only because he did not file a departmental appeal; the spirit behind the circular is that Drivers and Conductors who have not indulged in serious misconduct and are dismissed only on account of absenteeism are given an opportunity to serve Respondent-BEST.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The penalty of dismissal was not warranted for absence of 22 days; though the Petitioner was a chronic case of indiscipline, an opportunity deserves to be granted to him.

¶28

Key takeaways

While directing reinstatement, backwages are not granted, nor the benefit of continuity of service, so as not to put financial burden on BEST which is already facing financial crunch; however, for the limited purpose of determining retirement benefits, the entire period of service from the date of appointment is to be counted as continuous.ratio¶28
Circular dated 14 August 2025 does not contemplate fresh appointment but envisages 'reinstatement'.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 4402 of 2024, Datta Shankar Shinde v. The General Manager, The BEST Undertaking & Anr. — Sandeep V. Marne, J.; decided 17 September 2025. Petitioner, employed as a Bus Conductor in Magathane Bus Depot (Traffic Department) of Respondent-BEST, was dismissed on 7 December 2018 after a charge of absenteeism in chargesheet dated 6 January 2018 was held proved; the Labour Court upheld the enquiry as fair and proper and the Enquiry Officer's findings as not perverse (order dated 20 November 2019) and dismissed Complaint (ULP) No.40/2019 (judgment and order dated 17 November 2021); the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissed Revision Application (ULP) No.60/2021 on 14 September 2022, confirming both orders. By Circular dated 14 August 2025 the Traffic Department introduced a reinstatement policy for Bus Conductors/Bus Drivers dismissed for unauthorised absence, confined to those who had preferred departmental appeals, were below 55 years of age and had completed five years' minimum service; the Petitioner fulfilled all conditions except filing a departmental appeal, having gone straight to the Labour Court. Held: the benefit of the Circular cannot be denied merely for want of a departmental appeal; the penalty of dismissal was not warranted for absence of 22 days even though the Petitioner was a chronic case of indiscipline; and the Circular envisages 'reinstatement', not fresh appointment. Petition partly allowed and disposed of: the Industrial Court and Labour Court orders stand modified — reinstatement within 8 weeks without backwages, subject to clearing a medical fitness test; no continuity of service is granted, but the intervening period from dismissal till reinstatement is computed for retirement benefits, including gratuity.

¶1

901-WP-4402-2024.docx

¶2

Neeta Sawant

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2024

¶5

Datta Shankar Shinde …..Petitioner

¶6

: Versus :

¶7

The General Manager,

¶8

The BEST Undertaking

¶9

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.M. Palshilkar with Ms. Heena Shaikh i/b. M.V. Kini & Coi., for the Respondents.

¶13

Petitioner-Mr. Datta Shankar Shinde present.

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 17 SEPTEMBER 2025.

¶15

P.C :

¶16

The petition challenges the judgment and order dated 14 September 2022 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing Revision Application (ULP) No.60/2021 and confirming the order on preliminary issues dated 20 November 2019 and final judgment and order dated 17 November 2021 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.40/2019.

¶17

Page No. 1 of 4

¶18

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

¶19

901-WP-4402-2024.docx

¶20

Neeta Sawant

¶21

Petitioner was working as a Bus Conductor in Magathane Bus Depot in Traffic Department of Respondent-BEST. He came to be dismissed from service on 7 December 2018 after the charge levelled against him in the chargesheet dated 6 January 2018 of absenteeism was held to be proved. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper and findings of the Enquiry Officer were held to be not perverse by the Labour Court by order dated 20 November 2019. Thereafter, the complaint came to be dismissed by the Labour Court by judgment and order dated 17 November 2021. The Industrial Court has confirmed both the orders passed by the Labour Court.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Mhatre, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner who is nominated by High Court Legal Services Authority. I have also heard Mr. Palshikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-BEST.

¶23

Mr. Mhatre, at the outset, would invite my attention to the Circular dated 14 August 2025 issued by the Traffic Department introducing reinstatement policy for Bus Conductors/Bus Drivers dismissed on charge of remaining unauthorisedly absent. The reinstatement policy introduced vide Circular dated 14 August 2025 provides for reinstatement of Bus Drivers/Bus Conductors who have preferred departmental appeals against the order of dismissal. Only those Bus Conductors/Bus Drivers are to be reinstated who are below the age of 55 years and had completed minimum service of five years. It appears that Petitioner fulfills all conditions prescribed in Circular dated 14 August 2025, except filing of any departmental appeal against the dismissal order. It appears that Petitioner had directly approached Labour Court challenging the dismissal order without filing departmental appeal.

¶24

Page No. 2 of 4

¶25

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

¶26

901-WP-4402-2024.docx

¶27

Neeta Sawant

¶28

In my view, the benefit of Circular dated 14 August 2025 cannot be denied to the Petitioner only because he did not file departmental appeal. The spirit behind issuing the said circular is that Drivers and Conductors who have not indulged in serious misconduct and are dismissed only on account of absenteeism, are given an opportunity to serve the Respondent-BEST. Even otherwise, the penalty of dismissal was not warranted for absence of 22 days. Though Petitioner was a chronic case of indiscipline, in my view an opportunity deserves to be granted to him. However while directing reinstatement, I am not inclined to grant backwages to the Petitioner. I am also not inclined to grant benefit of continuity so as not to put financial burden on BEST which is already facing financial crunch. However for limited purpose of determining his retirement benefits, the entire period of his service from the date of appointment needs to be counted as continuous. Even the circular dated 14 August 2025 does not contemplate fresh appointment but envisages ‘reinstatement’.

¶29

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following order :

¶30

(i) The judgment and order dated 14 September 2022 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.60/2021 and final judgment and order dated 17 November 2021 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.40/2019 shall stand modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall be reinstated in service within a period of 8 weeks without any backwages.

¶31

Page No. 3 of 4

¶32

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

¶33

901-WP-4402-2024.docx

¶34

Neeta Sawant

¶35

(ii) The intervening period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement shall be computed only for the purpose of retirement benefits, including for gratuity.

¶36

(iii) Petitioner shall be subjected to medical fitness test and be reinstated in service subject to clearing of medical fitness test.

¶37

1. With the above directions, the petition is partly allowed and

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶40

Page No. 4 of 4

¶41

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

Datta Shankar Shinde v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Shankar Shinde v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sodexo India Services Private Limited vs Champsearch Private Limited

Indus Realty Through its Partner Faizan Gubitra vs Dhavalgiri Co. operative Housing Society Ltd.

Aryamaan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd.

B N Infra through its partner namely Mohammed Nayeem Siddiquee vs Vraj Realtors

Lotus Logistic and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Evertop Apartments Co. operative Housing Society Limited

Generic Engineering Construction And Projects Ltd. vs Maharashtra Maritime Board