Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. v. Vasant Sadasiv Samgir

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4372 OF 2025 Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd.

... Petitioner

Versus

Vasant Sadasiv Samgir ... Respondent Ms. Madhavi M. Tavanandi for the Petitioner.

CORAM

: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 1 APRIL 2025.

P.C. :

1) The Petition challenges judgment and order dated 16 January 2025 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 306 of 2019 and setting aside show cause notice dated 30 October 2019 issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent, by which penalty of permanent stoppage of one increment and recovery of loss of Rs.18,000/- was sought to be imposed on him.

2) I have heard Ms. Tavanandi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered submissions canvassed by her. I have also gone through the reasons recorded by MANE SONALI DILIP the Member, Industrial Court while allowing the complaint. I have MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2025.04.03 12:56:48 +0530 1 of

also gone through the records of domestic enquiry conducted against the Respondent, which is filed along with the petition. 3) At the outset, it must be observed that this Court does not appreciate the approach on the part of the Industrial Court in entertaining a complaint of unfair labour practice against a mere show cause notice issued to the Respondent. In ordinary course the Industrial Court ought to have permitted the employer to take the domestic enquiry to its logical end and it is only after punishment was imposed and all the departmental remedies are exhausted that the Industrial Court ought to have entertained the complaint of unfair labour practice. In the present case, Respondent was not even facing any extreme penalty resulting in loss of job.

The show cause notice was only for stoppage of one increment and recovery amount of Rs.18,000/-. In such circumstances, in ordinary course, the Industrial Court ought to have permitted the Petitioner-Employer to impose appropriate punishment in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 30 October 2019. Mere issuance of show cause notice does not mean that the employer is bound to impose the punishment suggested in the show cause notice. The employee has a right to make representation against show cause notice and convince the employer that the proposed penalty should not be imposed. It is therefore too premature for an Industrial adjudicator to entertain complaint of unfair labour practice merely against a show cause notice.

4) Therefore, this Court would have been justified in setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court only on the ground that entertainment of complaint of unfair labour practice against a mere show cause notice. However after going through the 2 of

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, I am of the view that imposition of any punishment on the Respondent was not really warranted.

5) Respondent faced charge in the domestic enquiry of causing an accident to the bus driven by him, which resulted in damage to the bus as well as injuries to the passengers. During the course of enquiry, Respondent took a defence that the brakes of the bus were not functioning properly, which was the cause for the accident.

The Enquiry Officer has assessed the entire evidence on record and has recorded following findings in his report: बसचेब्रेकचेतांत्रि कदोषाचाबतआरोत्रितसेवकाचेम्हणणेप्रस्तुतआहे असेमान्य केलेतरीबसचेब्रेकव्यवस्थिस्"तलागतनसल्याचेत्रिनदर्श'नासआलेनंतरआरोत्रितबस चालकानेत्याचवेळीबसमधीलप्रवार्शीतसेचरस्त्यावरीलइतरवाहनचालकव सांगवीलाजातानाचेरस्त्याचीरिरस्थिस्"तीयासव' बाबांचासुरक्षि/ततेच्यादृष्टीनेत्रिवचार करूनबसबाजूलाघेवूनवाहकासप्रवार्शीअन्यबसमध्येबसवूनदेणेससांगूनवायरलेस त्रिवभागासयाबाबतकळत्रिवणेआवश्यकहोतेएकूणचघटनाक्रमत्रिवचारातघेताआरोत्रित बसचालकानेबसचेब्रेकचेकामकरूनहीुन्हामागा'वरजातानाबसचेब्रेकचेदोषाबाबत त्यांचेत्रिनदर्श'नासआलेलेअसतानाहीत्रिनष्काळजीणेतेत्रिट= घेवूनसांगवीकडेजातहोते हीबाबदुल'/ीतकरतायेणारनाहीहेसव' त्रिवचारातघेताआरोत्रितसेवकाचेसादर खुलार्शामधीलबसचेब्रेकचेतांत्रि कदोषामुळेघटनाप्रकारघडल्याबाबतचेम्हणणेप्रस्तुत ठरतअसलेतरीस्टैंडत्रिBटरकडूनब्रेकचेकामकरूनघेतल्यानंतरब्रेकओकेअसल्याची खा ीकरूनमागा'वरजातानाुनश्चःब्रेकव्यवस्थिस्"तलागतनसल्याचीबाबत्रिनदर्श'नास आलेलीअसतानाबसमधीलप्रवार्शीवरस्त्यावरीलइतरवहनचालकनागरिरकयांची कोणतीहीसुर/ात्रिवचारातनघेताअसुरक्षि/तणेबसुढेघेवूनजाण्याचीआरोत्रितबस चालकाचीकृतीअप्रस्तुतठरतआहेहेत्रिवचारातघेतारिरोट'मधीलगैरवत'नासंदभा'तील नमूदम्हणणेमध्येतथ्यअसल्याचीबाबनाकारतायेतनाही.

6) Thus, the Enquiry Officer has accepted the defence of the Respondent that the brakes of the bus were not operating at the time of cause of accident. Once this defence of the Respondent is accepted, the Enquiry Officer could not have held him guilty of the charge on a mere surmise that the Respondent ought to have stopped the bus immediately after learning about improper functioning of the brakes.

3 of

7) Considering the specific finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in favour of Respondent-Employee that the accident was caused on account of improper functioning of brakes of the bus, I am of the view that imposition of penalty on the Respondent was clearly unwarranted. It is in the light of these unique facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 4 of