Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with consent of Mr. M. D. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. V. Bhamre, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.09.2022, passed by the Industrial Court Jalgaon in Revision Application (ULP) No.11 of 2022 whereby the Revision Application of the petitioner was dismissed, the petitioner/M.S.R.T.C. is before this Court in the present petition.

4. The facts in the case are not disputed by any party. The respondent was serving as a driver with the petitioner/M.S.R.T.C. It so happened that an accident occurred on 31.07.2019 on Amalner to Indore Road while the respondent was driving the M.S.R.T.C. bus No.MH 20 BL 2404. Consequent to the accident, certain news were telecasted on television alleging that the bus driver was driving the bus in drunken condition. Relying upon the news flashed on television as also published in newspapers, the M.S.R.T.C. invoked the discipline and Appeal Rules particularly clause no. 6(1) of the Rules, and without conducting any departmental inquiry dismissed the respondent from the services.

5. The respondent challenged the dismissal vide complaint ULP No.32 of 2019 in the Court of learned Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon. The Labour Court heard the parties and also considered to the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules of M.S.R.T.C. It was observed that the respondent was dismissed from the services merely on the basis of the news flashed on television as also publications in the newspaper. It was also observed that the M.S.R.T.C. has not even made an independent inquiry to confirm the truthfulness of the news flashed on the television and the newspapers publications. Observing that the dismissal of the respondent was against the principles of natural justice and also the concerned provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the M.S.R.T.C., the Labour Court allowed the complaint and directed the M.S.R.T.C. to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages.

6. The said order was taken up in challenge by the M.S.R.T.C. before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon vide Revision Application ULP No.11 of 2022. Worth to note the respondent also challenged the directions given by the Labour Court to the extent of restraining the back wages to the extent of 50%.

7. After hearing both the parties, the Industrial Court, Jalgaon dismissed both the Revision Applications. M.S.R.T.C. then challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court in the present Writ Petition.

8. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the case papers of the Writ Petition.

9. Mr. M. D. Shinde, learned Counsel for the M.S.R.T.C. has produced before me the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the M.S.R.T.C. Clause no.5 and 6 of the Rules deal about the action to be taken against an employee in respect of alleged misconduct. The said clauses read as follows:

                  

                  

                  

                  

                  

10. The sole contention of the petitioner is that the respondent’s case is covered by clause no.6(1) and hence the M.S.R.T.C. was justified in not conducting any departmental inquiry. Looking to the clause no.6(1) of the Rules, it is admitted fact that the respondent has not and never accepted the guilt alleged by the M.S.R.T.C. Secondly, so far as truthfulness of the offence is concerned, Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the M.S.R.T.C. would fairly argue that the action was taken on the basis of the news items flashed on the television as also publication of newspapers. It is a matter of fact that no independent inquiry about confirmation of the truthfulness of the news items was conducted by the M.S.R.T.C. As such, in any case, the M.S.R.T.C. was not justified in dismissing the petitioner by taking recourse to Rule 6(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

11. Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner/M.S.R.T.C. would raised specific objection as to the grant of 50% back wages as was ordered by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court.

12. As far as the objection raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding back wages, no convincing material is placed on record to hold that the finding of the Labour Court and Industrial Court are erroneous on that point.

13. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court as also the Industrial Court. The petitioner/M.S.R.T.C. has failed to show any perversity in the judgments. On the other hand, both the Labour Court and Industrial Court have correctly appreciated the facts of the case comparing the same with the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the M.S.R.T.C. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed.

14. It appears that the order or the Labour Court directing the M.S.R.T.C. to reinstate the respondent is of the year 2021. For no reasons and without there being any preventive order, the petitioner/M.S.R.T.C. has not even reinstated the respondent. This is a matter of serious concern and in fact a contemptuous act of the responsible officers of the M.S.R.T.C. I am of the considered and definite view that a decision rendered by a Court does not form ‘justice’ in its true meaning unless it is executed and implemented. A decree on paper is of no use. The authority on whom liability of decree/order of Court is casted, if fail to obey it timely, need to be dealt seriously. Those authorities are answerable to this Court.

15. The petitioner/ M.S.R.T.C. without any default shall reinstate the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and shall clear payable back wages in terms of the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court within two weeks from today. Default in following these directions shall have serious consequences.

16. Rule stands discharged.

17. Place this matter on 22.04.2026 for confirmation of compliance by the petitioner.