MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus DILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 03-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 148
148
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
DILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY
(Civil Appeal No. 7403 of 2021)
JANUARY 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Recognition of trade unions and prevention of
unfair labour practices Act 1971: Departmental proceedings –
Misconduct proved against respondent-driver of driving the vehicle
rashly and negligently due to which the accident occurred in which
four persons died – Disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal
from service – Labour Court did not interfere with the order of
dismissal by giving cogent reasons and after re-appreciating entire
evidence on record including the order of acquittal passed by the
criminal court – However, the Industrial Court though did not
interfere with the findings recorded by disciplinary authority on
misconduct proved, interfered with order of dismissal solely on the
ground that punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to
misconduct proved and the same was unfair labour practice as per
item No.1(g) of Schedule-IV of the Act of 1971 – The same was not
interfered with by the High Court – On appeal, held: The findings
of enquiry officer and order passed by Labour Court and Industrial
Court showed that respondent-workman was driving the vehicle in
such a great speed and rashly due to which the accident had
occurred in which four persons died – Even while acquitting
respondent-driver who was facing the trial under ss.279 and 304(a)
of IPC, Criminal Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove
that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
respondent only and none else – Therefore, even if it is assumed
that driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a
case of contributory negligence – That does not mean that the
respondent-workman was not at all negligent – Hence, it did not
absolve him of the misconduct – As per the cardinal principle of
law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on
the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the
cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields
and with different objectives – Therefore, the Industrial Court erred
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
in giving much stress on the acquittal of the respondent by the
criminal court – Applying clause No.1(g) of Schedule-IV of the Act,
1971, to instant case, it cannot be said that the dismissal of the
respondent was for misconduct of a minor or technical character,
without having any regard to the nature of the misconduct – Even
the past record of service of the respondent was not considered by
the Industrial Court – As per case of the appellant, respondent-
workman was in service for three years and during three years’
service tenure he was punished four times – Therefore, it cannot be
said that the order of dismissal was without having any regard to
the past record of the service of the respondent – Therefore, in facts
and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court wrongly invoked
clause No.1(g) of Schedule-IV of the Act, 1971, and wrongly
interfered with the order of dismissal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer in
the departmental enquiry and the judgment and order passed by
the labour court as well as the Industrial Court and even the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the criminal court show
that when the respondent was driving the vehicle it met with an
accident with the jeep coming from the opposite side and in the
said accident four persons died. From the material on record it
emerges that the impact of the accident with the jeep coming
from the opposite side was such that the jeep was pushed back
25 feet. From the aforesaid facts it can be said that the respondent
– workman was driving the vehicle in such a great speed and
rashly due to which the accident had occurred in which four
persons died. Even while acquitting the respondent-driver who
was facing the trial under Sections 279 and 304(a) of IPC, Criminal
Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the
incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused
– respondent herein only and none else. Therefore, at the best
even if it is assumed that even driver of the jeep was also
negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence.
That does not mean that the respondent-workman was not at all
negligent. Hence, it does not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.