Jorsingh Govind Vanjari v. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division
Background
The appellant, a bus conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed in 2002 after a departmental inquiry found he had collected fare from six passengers without issuing tickets and that his cash bag showed a shortage. The Labour Court, in 2013, held that the inquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice (the same authority framed the charge, held the inquiry, and suggested punishment; the alleged passengers were never examined) and that the management, given the chance, led no evidence to independently prove the misconduct, so it set aside the dismissal, but since the appellant had already crossed superannuation age, awarded 50% back wages plus other service benefits instead of reinstatement. The Bombay High Court, on the Corporation's challenge, held the Labour Court had wrongly decided the fairness of the inquiry together with the merits in one go, and reduced the relief to a one-time compensation while denying gratuity on the ground the charge involved moral turpitude.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the High Court was wrong to fault the Labour Court's procedure, noting that the management itself never sought a separate opportunity to lead evidence on the merits, and after the inquiry officer's findings were held perverse, the management still chose not to adduce any evidence, so the Labour Court could not be faulted for deciding the reference in the appellant's favour based on the material actually before it. The Court also held that the High Court's own grant of compensation was itself inconsistent with treating the termination as justified, and separately clarified that gratuity can only be denied where the employee's actual termination was for misconduct involving moral turpitude, not merely because a domestic inquiry report labelled the alleged conduct that way, especially when that very termination had been held illegal. On this reasoning, the High Court's judgment was set aside, the Labour Court's original award was restored in full, and the appellant was held entitled to gratuity for his continuous service up to superannuation, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
An employer who gets the chance to prove workplace misconduct independently before a Labour Court, after a domestic inquiry is found unfair, cannot rely on the inquiry's own findings alone: if no fresh evidence is led, the dismissal stands set aside; and once a dismissal itself is held illegal, the employer generally cannot still deny the employee's gratuity on the basis of the very misconduct that was never actually proved.