M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs President, State Industrial Court and Others

P.P. Naolekar, J.—Respondent No. 3 Poonamchand was appointed as a Conductor in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on November 18, 1978 and was posted to work at Baloda Bazar sub- depot. On August 1, 1979 he was found carrying passengers without ticket. Respondent No. 3 was charge-sheeted and in the regular departmental enquiry he was found guilty of the misconduct for which he was charged. The services of respondent No. 3 were terminated by order dated October 9, 1979. Respondent No. 3, challenged the order of termination as also the legality of the departmental enquiry proceedings before the Labour Court u/s 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court found the departmental enquiry to be illegal and gave opportunity to the Corporation to lead evidence before it to prove the charges against respondent No. 3. By order dated March 23, 1983 the order terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was set aside by the Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated but without back wages. Both the parties, i.e. Corporation and the respondent No. 3, have preferred appeals before the Industrial Court u/s 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act against the portions of the judgment which were against them. The Industrial Court by its order dated March 6, 1984 by a common judgment dismissed the appeal of the Corporation but the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 was allowed and it was directed that the respondent No. 3 will be reinstated with full back wages.

Aggrieved by this order of the Industrial Court the present petition has been filed. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Court having rightly held that the finding of the Labour Court in declaring the domestic enquiry to be illegal, should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Labour Court wherein order was passed for only reinstatement and no back wages were awarded to respondent No. 3.

On a perusal of the order of the Labour Court and of the Industrial Court, it is apparent that although the order of the Labour Court declaring the domestic enquiry to be illegal was set aside by the Industrial Court, as it has not suffered from any procedural irregularity or due to the bias of the officers of the Corporation (sic). The Industrial Court has further found that the Labour Court has also considered the domestic enquiry conducted by the department on merits. The Industrial Court has held that the Labour Court having found that the charges against the respondent No. 3 has not been found proved and misconduct of the respondent No. 3 is not established, has rightly held that the charges have not been proved in the domestic enquiry. Thus, according to the Industrial Court, although there was no procedural error in conducting the domestic enquiry, but on the merits of the case, the charges were not found proved against respondent No. 3 in the domestic enquiry. As regards interference in the quantum of punishment, the law is now well settled that when the order of dismissal from service of an employee is set aside as illegal, the employee is normally entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and it is for the employer to plead circumstances which would disentitle the employee to the benefit of full back wages. The employer can certainly show that the employee was gainfully employed during the period of enquiry and therefore, he is not entitled for back wages or can bring other factors before the Court which would disentitle the employee from getting back wages. Here in this case nothing has been brought about by the petitioner Corporation to take a different view of the matter, disentitling the respondent No. 3 from his legal right of having back wages as a normal rule. The burden was clearly on the employer to bring about the factors.

In the absence of any material on record which may persuade this Court in taking a different view of the matter of disentitling respondent No. 3 from back wages on his reinstatement, no order can be passed refusing back wages to : the respondent No. 3. In the circumstances aforesaid, the order of the Industrial Court does not suffer with any infirmity or illegality. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed. Counsel Fee Rs. 250/-, if certified.