9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation before the Labour Court, which resulted in the direction for his reinstatement with continuity in services and 50% back wages. Not only this, the petitioner, challenged the said judgment before the Industrial Court by way of a revision during which period, the respondent retired having crossed the age of superannuation. In spite of the dismissal of the revision, as filed by the petitioner, and stay to the effect, operation and execution of the orders passed by the subordinate Courts, except to the extent of the direction to pay 50% back wages, being declined, and a direction to process the claim of the respondent for other retiral benefits, the order dated 11/9/2015, records that this has not been done. This conduct, on part of the petitioner clearly defies logic. In Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India and others, [ 2005 (10) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT ], relied upon by Mr. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that merely because there has been an acquittal, it does not automatically entitle the employee to get salary for the period concerned. Thus, the award of 50% back wages, to the respondent, in light of the above position of law, is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) No.16/2013 before the Industrial Court, which dismissed the same by judgment dated 11/9/2015, while noting that in the meantime, the respondent had retired from his services, as he had crossed the age of superannuation. 5. Mr. Ashish Mehadia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by inviting my attention to Rule 81 of the Bombay State Transport Employees Service Regulations, (for short, "the Regulations" hereinafter) by which the respondent is governed, submits that the rule permits the termination of an employee, if he has been convicted by a Criminal Court, without notice. He submits that in spite of the absence of any requirement to issue any notice, a notice was issued and an opportunity to explain was given to the respondent. He therefore submits, that the action of the petitioner is in consonance with Rule 81 of the Regulations. He further submits, that the acquittal by the High Court, was not a clean acquittal but the same was on account of the matter being compounded, and therefore, cannot form the basis of an order of reinstatement, for which reliance is placed on Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2016) 1 SCC 671, Hafizuddin Inayatullah Kazi Vs. J. C. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of acquittal till the date of superannuation, which was on 30/9/2012. Reliance is placed upon Bahadur S. Solanki Vs. LIC of India and another, (2002) 10 SCC 105. 7. It is not in dispute that the conviction of the respondent, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned J.M.F.C., has ultimately been set aside by this Court by judgment dated 22/2/2011. A copy of this judgment has not been placed on record along with the petition or subsequently also to substantiate the contention, that the acquittal was due to compounding of the offence. Since a ground in this regard has been canvassed, it was necessary for the petitioner to place a copy of the same on record. The record of the lower Courts has also not been received, from which the above position could be ascertained, as it is an admitted position, as reflected from the judgment of the lower Courts that the judgment of acquittal had been placed on record. Be that as it may, no rule or authority, has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to indicate that a reinstatement in services with continuity, could not have been directed, on account that the judgment of acquittal was on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down in Pundalik Sawadkar (supra) cannot be disputed, and in all cases where there is a conviction, the department would be justified in initiating appropriate action as per the rules applicable unless there is any provision to keep such action in abeyance, for whatsoever reason. No such Rule has been pointed out in the present case and therefore the contention of Mr. Saboo, learned Counsel for the respondent does not hold any water. 9. In so far as the contention that the respondent was not entitled to 50% back wages, as granted, it is to be kept in mind, that the respondent was not terminated for any misconduct in the performance of his services, by conducting a departmental enquiry but merely on the ground of his conviction by the learned J.M.F.C., under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It has been averred in the complaint before the Labour Court that during the period of his conviction and acquittal, the respondent was not gainfully employed. The fact of acquittal of the respondent by this Court, was made aware to the petitioner, in March, 2011 itself, which is indicated from the application for amendment filed before the Labour Court (Annexure-B/pg.13), purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
