A city labour court last week set aside the decision of the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport (BEST) undertaking to dismiss a bus driver from service while holding that the punishment awarded to him was 'harsh and shockingly disproportionate'. It observed about the civic transport undertaking, "…it is right of employer to execute such powers to maintain discipline in its establishment, but admittedly such rights are coupled with certain responsibilities and it is expected from every employer that he should be [sic] discharge his responsibilities properly and legally." Presiding officer PS Kulkarni directed that the driver Macchindra Dahiphale be reinstated. He was sacked as the BEST alleged he had remained absent for 49 days in the year 2016 without prior intimation to or permission from his superiors. It also contended that on previous occasions taking a sympathetic view on Dahiphale, the BEST had taken minor action like reduction in his grade and on another occasion while he was dismmised, the appellate authority had set aside his dismissal. The undertaking further said that they had no alternative to dismissing him as his conduct had not improved. The court however found that during the period that he had been on leave, he had submitted numerous leave applications in which he had highlighted the reason for the leave, that is, illness. The Court said, "…though the concerned employee was absent from his regular duties…but he tried at his level best [sic] to inform the undertaking into [sic] that effect." It said further that the BEST had 'not properly considered' the reasons behind absenteeism and 'categorically failed' to make out case of wilful absenteeism on part of Dahiphale. Presiding officer Kulkarni said, "…Considering all these aspects and taking overall view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the justification behind absenteeism was not at all considered by the opponent undertaking and so much casually awarded the punishment like dismissal." While Dahiphale, who had filed the complaint through the BEST Workers Union, had sought for back wages for the period after his dismissal, the court said on this matter, that disproportionality in quantum of punishment does not create any right to claim full back wages. It refused to entertain that demand. COURT’S OBSERVATION

Stay updated with all the Mumbai Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.