In a significant case involving the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation (STC), the High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the reversal of an order of reinstatement and back wages by the Industrial Court. The case, centered around the dismissal of a bus conductor, has raised pertinent questions about the role of the Industrial Court in revising findings of lower courts and the evidentiary weight of pre-recorded statements in domestic inquiries.
Case Overview:
The dispute revolves around a petition filed by a former conductor of the STC, who was dismissed from service for alleged misappropriation of funds. The Petitioner, who had been employed by the corporation since 1989, was deployed as a conductor on the Unjawade - Vengurla route. On January 8, 1999, while the bus was being inspected, a passenger, Shri. Ravindra Sawant, was found in possession of a ticket issued the previous day. Additionally, the Petitioner was found with a shortage of Rs. 24 in the ticket cash.
As a result of this incident, a domestic inquiry was initiated, and the Petitioner was found guilty of selling a previously issued ticket. The punishment of dismissal from service, effective May 1, 1999, was imposed by the corporation.
Labour Court's Ruling:
In response, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 174 of 1999, challenging the dismissal. The Labour Court held that although the domestic inquiry was fair, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were "perverse." The Court concluded that the evidence provided by the passenger, Shri. Sawant, during the inquiry, who denied purchasing the ticket from the Petitioner, cast doubt on the charges. Consequently, the Labour Court ordered the Petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
Industrial Court's Revision:
The Respondent (STC) appealed to the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 38 of 2003, arguing that the Labour Court had erred in its judgment. The Industrial Court, after a thorough examination, overturned the Labour Court's decision, setting aside the order for reinstatement and back wages. The Industrial Court reasoned that the Labour Court had failed to consider the pre-recorded statements made by the passenger and the Petitioner to the checking squad immediately after the incident. These statements, which both the Petitioner and the passenger had confirmed, played a significant role in proving that the Petitioner had indeed issued the ticket in question.
Legal Arguments:
The Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Parab, argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning a well-reasoned decision of the Labour Court. He emphasized that the Labour Court had correctly assessed the passenger's hostile testimony and concluded that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. He further contended that the shortfall of Rs. 24 in the Petitioner’s cash box could not be conclusively linked to the sale of an already issued ticket, as it did not directly prove any act of misappropriation.
On the other hand, the Respondent’s counsel, Ms. Bhansali, defended the Industrial Court's decision, arguing that the statements made by the Petitioner and the passenger at the time of the checking were critical pieces of evidence that corroborated the charge of selling an already sold ticket. Ms. Bhansali also pointed out that the Petitioner did not disown these statements in his response to the charge sheet, which weakened his defense during the inquiry.
Court's Analysis:
The High Court, in its review, focused on three key factors highlighted by the Industrial Court:
The Pre-recorded Statement: The statement made by the passenger on January 8, 1999, stating that he had indeed purchased the ticket from the Petitioner, was given significant weight. The Industrial Court found no animus or malice in the recording of this statement by the checking team, which cast doubt on the Petitioner’s claims of coercion.
Absence of Disavowal: The Petitioner did not contest the recorded statement in his reply to the charge sheet. The Court observed that had the statement been coerced, the Petitioner would have immediately disowned it, but this was not done.
Failure to Challenge the Charge at the Inquiry: The Petitioner did not provide an adequate explanation as to why the ticket was not issued to the passenger. His failure to challenge the charge of issuing an already sold ticket further undermined his defense.
While the Labour Court had focused heavily on the passenger’s hostile testimony, the Industrial Court took a more holistic view, considering the totality of the evidence, including the pre-recorded statements, the Petitioner’s response, and the lack of any direct challenge to the charge.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Industrial Court’s decision, affirming that the Labour Court had committed an error in not properly considering the pre-recorded statements and the full context of the case. The Court concluded
that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial Court was valid and within its rights, as the Labour Court’s findings were deemed perverse.
This case underscores the importance of considering the entirety of the evidence, including pre-recorded statements, and highlights the role of the Industrial Court in correcting errors made by the lower courts in labor disputes. The Court’s decision also reaffirms the principle that in cases of dismissal, a clear and consistent body of evidence is required to uphold the charges of misconduct.
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
