Summary
The Court restored the dismissal of a bus driver whose rash and negligent driving was proved in departmental proceedings after an accident causing four deaths. His criminal acquittal on shortcomings in prosecution proof did not displace those disciplinary findings, and possible negligence by the other driver did not absolve him. The misconduct was serious, so Item 1(g) of Schedule IV could not justify treating dismissal as an unfair labour practice for minor or technical misconduct. The High Court’s additional back-wage direction also exceeded the scope of the employer’s writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the criminal acquittal or another driver’s contributory negligence displaced the proved departmental misconduct.
- Whether dismissal for the fatal accident could be interfered with under Schedule IV, Item 1(g).
Provisions considered
- Schedule IV, Item 1(g), Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971Serious proved negligent driving causing four deaths was not minor or technical misconduct warranting interference on the stated unfair-labour-practice ground. (¶ 10.5-11)
Held
- The Industrial Court had not overturned the departmental finding that rash and negligent driving caused the accident. Even assuming negligence by the jeep driver, that did not eliminate the employee’s own misconduct. (¶ 10-10.2)
- The criminal acquittal reflected deficiencies in prosecution proof, including hostile witnesses and evidentiary omissions. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings have different purposes and standards of proof; the acquittal did not negate the misconduct independently established in the departmental inquiry. (¶ 10.3-10.4)
- Item 1(g) concerns dismissal for minor or technical misconduct without due regard to its nature or the past service record, producing shockingly disproportionate punishment. The fatal negligent-driving misconduct was serious, and the Industrial Court also failed to consider the past disciplinary record. Its interference was unjustified. (¶ 10.5-11)
- On these facts dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate. The employee had also admitted gainful employment after dismissal, which the Court treated as an additional circumstance against the reinstatement relief granted. (¶ 11-12)
- The High Court could not enlarge relief by awarding the specified back wages in the employer’s writ petition when the employee had not brought that challenge. The direction exceeded the controversy before it. (¶ 13)
- The Labour Court’s award sustaining dismissal was restored, and the Industrial Court’s reinstatement order and High Court judgment were set aside. (¶ 14)
Result
Employer’s appeal allowed; Industrial Court and High Court orders set aside; Labour Court award and disciplinary dismissal restored; no costs.