JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. in all these petitions and also Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for respondent in all these petitions. 2.These petitions arise in the following manner. Against Complaint No. 100/91 filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court, the present petitioner filed revision No. 170/96 and Writ Petition No. 1616/97 is filed against the same. 3.Against Complaint No. 125/94 filed by respondent before the Labour Court, petitioner-Corporation filed Revision No. 174/96 and Writ Petition No. 1628/97 is filed against the order in the said revision. 4.Against Complaint No. 213/93 filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court and the order passed therein, the petitioner-corporation filed Revision No. 176/96 and against the order in revision, Writ Petition No. 1629/97 is filed. 5.The respondent, who was the employee of the Corporation as an artision, has put in 18 years of service till this date. First inquiry was started against him by the petitioner-Corporation for absentism against which he preferred Complaint No. 100/91: interim relief was granted to him on 23-4-91 and he was continued in service. While this complaint was pending and he was in service pursuant to the interim order, fresh enquiry was started against him for committing theft of 3 welding wire bundles. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to him for dismissal, for which he filed Complaint No. 213/93 and obtained status-quo order on 18/9/93. Therefore, again he was continued in service. Thereafter, he again remained absent. An enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service on 9-8-94 upon which respondent filed 3 complaints vide Complaint Nos./ 100/91, 120/94 and 213/93. 6.All these 3 complaints of the respondent were decided by the Labour Court by separate orders passed on the same day i.e. on 25-9-96. While the matters were pending before the Labour Court, respondent gave a purshis that he was giving up his claim for backwages and therefore, after hearing both the parties, the Labour Court order the petitioner-MSRTC to reinstate the respondent. 7.The petitioner MSRTC filed revisions before the industrial Court and the Industrial Court by common order dated 12-12-96 rejected the revision applications and ordered the implementation of the order of the Labour Court. This common order of the industrial Court has been challenged by the MSRTC by the filing the 3 petitions. 8. 7.The petitioner MSRTC filed revisions before the industrial Court and the Industrial Court by common order dated 12-12-96 rejected the revision applications and ordered the implementation of the order of the Labour Court. This common order of the industrial Court has been challenged by the MSRTC by the filing the 3 petitions. 8. It was contended by the petitioner's advocate that the respondent has repeatedly indulged into misconduct and has taken advantage of interim reliefs granted to him by the Labour Court of reinstatement and has not desisted from continuing with his habit of remaining absent and has also committed theft of 3 welding wire bundles; it was also contended that so far as finding of facts, which were the subject matter of the 3 enquiries against respondent, the Labour Court gave a specific finding in all the 3 complaints that the enquiries which were conducted against the respondent were fair and proper and strictly in accordance with principles of natural justice and the misconduct on the part of the respondent was proved by petitioner-Corporation in all the 3 matters. 9.In this background, it was contended by Mr. Bora that when the respondent is repeatedly guilty of misconduct not only once, twice or thrice but more than a scores of occasions; it was improper on the part of the Labour Court and on the part of the Industrial Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal that was imposed on the respondent. 10.On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the view adopted by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court regarding imposition of punishment and their findings that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, was not liable to be interfered with. Counsel for the respondent also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1998(4) Bom.C.R. 537 (Divisional Controller, MSRTC Bhandara v. Gulab Tanbaji Bhandarkar)1, and also a judgment of this Court reported in 1992(II) C.L.R. 238 (Ramdas Kishan Navi v. Divisional Controller, MSRTC)2. Accordingly to him, the view taken by this Court in both the aforesaid judgments directly applies in the present case and the punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent and the findings and claims arrived at by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are not required to be interfered with. Accordingly to him, the view taken by this Court in both the aforesaid judgments directly applies in the present case and the punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent and the findings and claims arrived at by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are not required to be interfered with. 11.The judgment of this Court in Ramdas S/o. Kishan Navi's case, is based on single accident being committed by the driver/petitioner/Ramdas, wherein in a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service and the Labour Court gave a finding against the MSRTC and Ramdas was ordered to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity in service. In a revision filed by the Corporation before the Industrial Court, granted ex parte stay to the order of reinstatement and when the matter was challenged before the High Court, it was held that "merely because the driver commits an accident, he does not deserve punishment by way of an economic death by removing from service". The Court therefore, set aside the order of stay granted by the Industrial Court and upheld order of the Labour Court. Regarding the other judgment relied upon by the respondent and reported in M.L.J. as stated above is also in respect of a driver committing accident for the first time. The question before the Labour Court was whether the previous conduct of the employees was such, so as to make him suffer the punishment of dismissal. In this judgment, what is held by Justice Rebello is that the past record serves as a barometer to consider the nature of punishment which is to be imposed, if the employee committs misconduct, only on one occasion then his case has to be distinguished from an employee who is charged on several occasions of misconduct and the misconduct is proved against him. 12.If the facts of the present case are considered, then it would be clear that the first judgment in the case of Ramdas does not apply to the present case and the observations of Justice Rebello in the second case go against the respondent. So far as the complaints before the Labour Court were concerned, there were 3 complaints, which were filed by the respondent. All these complaints had arisen out of a departmental enquiry and the findings therein, were against the respondent. So far as the complaints before the Labour Court were concerned, there were 3 complaints, which were filed by the respondent. All these complaints had arisen out of a departmental enquiry and the findings therein, were against the respondent. Admittedly, therefore, there were 3 cases of misconduct against the respondent, wherein the findings of the Labour Court so far as the misconduct are concerned are against the respondent. So far as previous conduct of the respondent is concerned, my attention was drawn by Mr. Bora to the fact that in all there were 65 acts of misconduct alleged against the respondent, wherein there were number of occasions of his absentism without permission and he was punished 35 times for all these misconduct. If at all a view of Justice Rebello is accepted, then previous misconduct raises gradually while deciding the case. In the instant case, there was voluminuous record of misconduct against the respondent, in 3 matters before Labour Court, he has been directly held to be guilty or finding of his guilt have not been interfered with by the Labour Court. All these 3 misconducts are persuaded by 65 other misconducts out of which respondent was punished on 35 occasions and in view of this fact this is a serious case where the Labour Court and the revisional Court i.e. the Industrial Court committed a grave illegality in setting aside the order of dismissal and ordering reinstatement. It appears that the Labour Court was swayed away by the purshis filed by respondent in giving up the backwages. 13.The learned Counsel for the respondent tried to justify the order of the Labour Court in all the 3 cases. However, a perusal of the order shows that the Labour Court did not take into consideration the fact that 3 complaints were filed before it and 3 complaints were the result of 3 enquiries held against the respondent, wherein 3 acts of misconduct coupled with the previous conduct of absentism for 28 occasions and other acts of misconduct were referred to above. The Labour Court even after coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and by principle of natural justice and even after holding that findings in the enquiry were not at all perverse, took not only lenient view, but also come to a finding that the punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court even after coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and by principle of natural justice and even after holding that findings in the enquiry were not at all perverse, took not only lenient view, but also come to a finding that the punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate. I do not find any reason to come to the conclusion that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the contrary in case of an employee who has proved by his, repeated misconduct on more than dozens of occasions, the only punishment that could be awarded was his dismissal from the service. 14.The Counsel for the respondent lastly urged that if the punishment for dismissal is imposed, the respondent will be out of service and his whole family will be thrown on road, but the Counsel for the petitioner who relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1995(4) Bom.C.R. 646 - (Divisional Controller, MSRTC Chandrapur v. Giridhar Raghunath Derkar)3, wherein Justice Lodha has held that the workman cannot be permitted to keep on indulging into misconduct time and again and despite having been shown mercy, warning, and modest punishment, previously in the name of repeatedly mercy and reformation. If an employee does not improve, despite opportunities given, then merely by showing mercy would result in multiplying misconduct. In this view of the matter, all the petitions are liable to be allowed. I therefore, pass the following order. 15.Rule made absolute. Orders of the Labour Court dated 25-9-96 and that of the Industrial Court dated 12-12-96 are set aside and quashed. Ad-interim relief if any is vacated. Petitions allowed. *****