JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-company has impugned in the present petition, the award passed by the Second Labour Court, Pune, on 28 August 1991, directing it to reinstate the workman, Sri Baban Ananda Dhotre in the post of driver and to pay him 50 per cent of back-wages from the date of termination, i.e., 3 October 1984, up to November 1987 and from 1 July 1989, till reinstatement. The Labour Court had given the aforesaid Part II award after holding by its Part I award that the enquiry into the chargesheets, dated 15 September 1983 and 14 January 1984 were valid, legal and proper and that the findings were also proper except for one incident. The Labour Court had given its finding in its Part II award that the punishment of dismissal of the workman was shockingly disproportionate and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. It is an admitted fact that the workman was employed as a driver from 3 February 1979 and was confirmed on 4 July 1979. He was assigned the work of driving the car of the Company's Executive Director, Sri J.P. Gupta. He was also required to render his services towards the family members of Sri Gupta. 3. By a dismissal order, dated 30 September 1984, the petitioner dismissed the workman from employment after holding a domestic enquiry for alleged acts of misconduct levelled by it by its chargesheets, dated 12 September 1983 and 14 January 1984. The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the propriety and legality of the aforesaid dismissal order. The State Government referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under S. 10(1) read with S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his statement of claim, challenging the propriety and legality of the dismissal order and praying for reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. It was alleged By him that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-company was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner-company had dismissed him with ulterior motives, mala fide and had indulged in unfair labour practice. It was also contended by him that the extreme punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and it amounted to victimisation. It was alleged By him that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-company was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner-company had dismissed him with ulterior motives, mala fide and had indulged in unfair labour practice. It was also contended by him that the extreme punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and it amounted to victimisation. He had also contended that the enquiry officer had not complied with the principles of natural justice and that his findings were baseless and perverse According to him he had not committed any acts of misconduct as alleged against him. The petitioner-company filed its written statement and denied the various allegations and averments made by the respondent. It further denied that it had not complied with the principles of natural justice and that it had dismissed the respondent mala fide or had victimised him. The company also contended that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the workman was given full opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry. Both the parties had adduced their respective evidence, oral and documentary, before the Labour Court, both on the point of fairness and legality of the enquiry and also on the point of punishment. As stated earlier by me, the Labour Court has held by its Part I award that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were also not perversed. The Labour Court had interfered that the punishment of dismissal while exercising its jurisdiction under S. 11A of the Act. 4. It is an admitted position that the workman was assigned to drive the car of Sri Gupta, the Executive Director of the company It is also an admitted position that the relations between Sri Gupta and the workman were strained and were not at all cordial, as they should be between the owner and the driver of the vehicle. According to me the relations between the driver and the owner whose car he is driving are distinct and there cannot be even little friction leading to mutual ill-will. The relations must be smooth and straight between both of them. The driver must not have a grudge against the owner or his family members, whom he is rendering his services nor the owner of the vehicle or his family members should have any kind of grude or ill-will against the driver. It is like husband and wife. The relations must be smooth and straight between both of them. The driver must not have a grudge against the owner or his family members, whom he is rendering his services nor the owner of the vehicle or his family members should have any kind of grude or ill-will against the driver. It is like husband and wife. Both must have mutual trust and confidence in each other. According to me, a workman working in the shop floor of the factory and a driver driving his owner's car, both are to be treated differently and they cannot be equated with each other, and therefore, the test to be applied in an industrial dispute, where driver is concerned, would be little different. 5. In the present case, the grievance of the workman appears to be that on 25 August 1983, the son of Sri Gupta committed an accident and Sri Gupta wanted the petitioner to accept the responsibility of the accident and since the petitioner refused to accept the responsibility, the relations of Sri Gupta with the respondent were strained. This story is flately denied by Sri Gupta. According to the company and Sri Gupta, the workman was in the habit of committing misconduct and in the past he was warned on many occasions and every time the company had taken a lenient view and had let him off, and therefore, he was continued in employment. The admitted events of the misconduct as well as late coming for duty and/or arrogant behaviour are specified in the chargesheet during the period 30 June 1979 till 4 January 1984. It is also stated by the petitioner that on all these occasions he was simply warned and only on one occasion he was suspended for one day without wages. In the chargesheet, dated 12 September 1983, all the details about the respondent's late coming, etc., have been specifically mentioned. Even during the pendency of the enquiry in the aforesaid chargesheet, the respondent committed another act of misconduct of behaving arrogantly with Executive Director, Sri Gupta. In the chargesheet, dated 12 September 1983, all the details about the respondent's late coming, etc., have been specifically mentioned. Even during the pendency of the enquiry in the aforesaid chargesheet, the respondent committed another act of misconduct of behaving arrogantly with Executive Director, Sri Gupta. This incident is also clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, dated 14 January 1984, which was for his disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of Sri Gupta to drive the car in a particular manner as set out in the said chargesheet According to the petitioner-company, in the aforesaid circumstances, there was a limit to tolerate such a driver, and therefore, the company had finally decided to get rid of him after giving him an opportunity of hearing as contemplated by the Standing Orders. According to the company, the past record would reflect two clear facts: (i) the behaviour and the conduct of the driver was very bad; and (ii) in spite of such a bad record the company always took a lenient view and continued him in employment and finally when the tolerance crossed the limits the company had to dismiss the workman in accordance with law. 6. According to me, the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case. It has lost sight of special relationship between the driver and the owner of the vehicle. I have already stated that the relationship between the driver and the owner of the vehicle or his family whoever is in use of the car, has to be smooth and of mutual trust and confidence. Even a small friction between them would spoil the relationship. It cannot be denied and it was not denied that the past record of the driver was very bad. No one would tolerate driver or for that matter any employee who is in the habit of coming late to his duty. Especially a driver must be very punctual. I fail to understand why any one in a city like Pune, where there is hardly any dependence on public transport, and there are hardly any transport hardships as are suffered by the working class in a city like Mumbai because of their dependence on public transport, should attend the duties late frequently. Especially a driver must be very punctual. I fail to understand why any one in a city like Pune, where there is hardly any dependence on public transport, and there are hardly any transport hardships as are suffered by the working class in a city like Mumbai because of their dependence on public transport, should attend the duties late frequently. I can understand in a city like Mumbai where people do come from very far off places and have to travel long distances depending upon public transport may be late once or twice but not frequently. But in a small town like Pune where from one end of the city one can reach the other end with the aid of public transport, in not more than an hour, a person cannot get late to his duties very frequently. 7. In the present case, the workman is found to be coming late on many occasions in a month and therefore, had become beyond tolerable limits of Sri Gupta and the company, and therefore, they finally dismissed the workman. According to me, considering all the facts including the past record of the workman, the Labour Court was not at all justified in holding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court has lost sight of the special relationship between the driver and the owner. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 1 quash and set aside the award, dated 28 August 1991, and hold that the punishment of dismissal was legal and proper and it did not warrant any interference by the Labour Court. 8. It is significant to note that though the order of reinstatement was stayed by this Court, subject to the provisions of S.17B of the Act, whereunder, the workman would have earned his wages during the pendency of this petition, he had not filed any affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else. The above fact indicates that he was gainfully employed and did not file any such affidavit to claim the benefits of S. 17B of the Act. 9. With the result, the petition is allowed, rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. 10. Parties to act on a copy of the order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar