The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramesh Madhukar Bhadikar
2025:BHC-AUG:26966 1 907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 WRIT PETITION NO. 11040 OF 2025 THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VERSUS
RAMESH MADHUKAR BHADIKAR ...
Advocate for the Petitioner :
Mr. D. R. Bagul h/f. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 26.09.2025 PER COURT:
1.
Heard.
2.
By the present petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.05.2024, passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.272/2018.
3.
The case in brief is that the respondent was employed as skill artisan with the MSRTC and while on duty and engaged in repairing the roof of ST bus, he fell off the bus, sustaining a serious head injury and became unconscious and, thereafter, he was admitted to hospital. Thereafter, he has received the treatment in the hospital from 02.12.2017 to 08.12.2017 and an advance was paid to him of Rs.1,00,000/- by the MSRTC for medical treatment. The respondent had resumed on the work and submitted medical
2 907 bills totalling to Rs.59,053/- and Rs.20,368/- including hospital bills, doctors fees, diagnostic reports, physiotherapy charges and medicines and on examination of the bills Rs.34,054/- was sanctioned by the MSRTC. The respondent had not submitted remaining bills. As such, the petitioner directed to recover Rs.65,946/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- advance from the bills of the salary of the respondent. The respondent thereafter challenged the same before the Industrial Court, Latur. The Industrial Court, Latur on consideration of the matter has observed as under: "१९. वरील विवेचनाचा सारांश थोडकयात असा की, सा. वाला यांनी तक्रारदाराचे रक्कम रु.५९,०५३/- व रु.२०,३६८/- ही दोन्ही वैद्यकीय विले सेवा विनियमन १९५ व १९६ नूसार अग्रिम रक्कम रु.१,००,०००/- मधून वजावटीसाठी पात्र धरावयास हवी होती. परंतु सा. वाला यांनी रक्कम रु.
२०,३६८/- चे बिल विचारार्थ घेतले नाही व रवकम रु.५९.०५३/- मधील बिल रक्कम काटछाट करुन रु.३४,०५४/- एवढी रक्कम वजावटी साठी पात्र धरली. सदरील कृत्य सेवा विनियमन १९५ व १९६ तसेच सा. वाला यांचे निशाणी यु-३१ वरील दिनांक ०६/०८/२०१० रोजीचे परिपत्रकाचे विरुध्द असून त्याद्वारे सा. वाला यांनी अनुसूचि-४ बाब कं. ९ नूसार अनुचित कामगार प्रथांचा अवलंब केला आहे. त्यामूळे तकारदाराची सदरील मागणी मान्य करण्यात येते. तक्रारदाराने दोन्ही बिलांद्वारे रक्वाम रु.७९,४२१/- चा हिशोब सादर केलेला आहे. या व्यतिरिक्त सा. वाला यांनी तकारदाराच्या सप्टेंबर व ऑक्टोबर २०१८ या दोन महिन्यात प्रत्येकी रु.६,६९५/- असे एकूण रु.१३,३९०/- कपात केलेली असून तकारदाराने न्यायालयाचे दिनांक ३०/११/२०१८ रोजीचे आदेशानुसार रक्कम रु.७,३८८/- सा. वाला यांचेकडे जमा केले आहेत. अशाप्रकारे तकारदाराने सादर केलेला हिशोब व सा. वाला यांनी कपात केलेली रक्कम यांची बेरीज अग्रिम रक्कमेपेक्षा जास्त होतो.
त्यामूळे सा. बाला यांची तकारदाराचा पगार कपातीचा दिनांक २१/०९/२०१८ रोजीचा आदेश रदद करणे क्रमप्राप्त ठरते. परंतू तकारदार विशेष विकलांग रजा मिळणेस पात्र नाही. म्हणून मी मुद्दा कमांक क. १ व २ चे निष्कर्ष त्यानूसार काढले असून मुद्दा क. ३ चे निष्कर्षानुसार खालील आदेश पारीत करीत आहे."
3 907 4.
The court held that the entire amount of Rs.79,421/- ought to have been granted, considering Service Rules 195 and
196. It has further held that the the deduction was unwarranted as the calculations given by the respondent / employee and the deductions made by the MSRTC, the total of which is more than the amount of advance. As such, the court held that there is no outstanding to be recovered from the petitioner. 5.
Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the error in computation, as undertaken by the tribunal relying upon the Service Rules 195 and 196 and, also, considering that the amount returned to the MSRTC is more than the advance given, there is no case made out for interference. The amount involved is too small and, as such, no further adjudication is necessary in the matter. 6.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe