Karnataka High Court
The North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs S.S. Poleshi on 17 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001(88)FLR255], 2000(4)KARLJ538, (2000)IILLJ1581KANT
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
ORDER G.C. Bharucha, J.
1. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation against the order dated 11-10-1999 passed in W.P. No. 37003 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the respondent-Conductor but with denial of 75% back wages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
2. The respondent is employed with the appellant-Corporation as conductor. On 15-7-1993, when the bus bearing No. 3905 plying on the route Talikote-Godakhandi, which he was conducting, was intercepted and inspected by the Checking Squad. It was found that he had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers out of 33 passengers traveling from Talikote to Fatepur despite collection of fares. On being examined, the passengers stated that though fare was collected from them by the respondent-conductor but he had failed to issue tickets. Accordingly, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the duly conducted enquiry, the charges of non-issue of tickets and non-compliance of rule 'issue and start' against him were found established and therefore he was subjected to major punishment of dismissal from service.
3. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. Since the Labour Court did not find the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, it permitted the parties to adduce their evidence. The Labour Court keeping in view the evidence led, held that the charge of pilferage was not proved merely on the ground that none of the passengers had been examined during the adjudication proceedings and the checking staff had failed to check the cash balance with the respondent-conductor and therefore it could not be said that the respondent-conductor had collected fare from the said passengers.
4. In our opinion, the view taken by the Labour Court is clearly fallacious and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in various cases.
5. In the case of D.C. Roy v Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, the appellant, who was working as a Ticket Examiner in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on a proved charge of his colluding with the conductor of the Corporation's bus, who despite collection of fare had failed to issue tickets to 9-1/2 passengers, was dismissed from service as a measure of punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the punishment by holding that.
"The appellant having acted dishonestly in connection with the business of the Corporation, he was clearly guilty of a major misconduct".
6. Similar view, as in the above case, was taken by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another v Rattan Singh . In this case as well, the conductor of the Haryana Road Transport Corporation was found guilty of not issuing tickets to 11 passengers despite collection of fare from them. On establishment of the guilt in the domestic enquiry, his services were terminated. He challenged the order before the Civil Court and succeeded. State's appeal before the District Judge and the High Court failed. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the termination.
7. In the case of Ratan Singh, supra, the principal ground on which the Courts below had declared the termination as bad was that none of the 11 passengers had been examined in the domestic enquiry. The explanation of the State- was that according to the Inspector of Flying Squad, the passengers who had said that they had paid fares declined to give written statement. Taking into account the above facts borne out from the records, the Supreme Court took the view that.-
"Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions-of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid".
8. In the above case, it has further been held that "the Courts below had misdirected themselves, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded". In the above case, the Apex Court has clarified and declared as of law that "in domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility," Their Lordships have further clarified that in domestic enquiry what is required to be ascertained is as to whether there is some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sence of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. On fact, the Court held that the evidence of Inspector of Flying Squad was enough to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent-conductor and accordingly punishment of termination could not have been interfered with.
9. In the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Basudeo Chaudhary, the conductor of UPSTRC, after due enquiry was dismissed from service on the charge that though he had collected bus fare from 23 passengers at the rate of Rs. 5.35 per head but in the way bill he had entered as Rs. 2.35 from each of them. By the said process, the conductor had tried to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 65/-. The said finding was accepted by the Labour Court but the High Court interfered with the said order by taking the view that the charges against the petitioner had not been proved to the hilt. Despite the above facts, the Supreme Court, on appeal has held that since the conductor had tried to fabricate the record by recording recovery of wrong fare to show that the passengers had travelled for a lesser distance amounts to misconduct of serious nature (para 5). It was held that having regard to the nature of misconduct that has been established against the petitioner, it is not possible to say that the Corporation, in removing the petitioner from service, had imposed a punishment which can be held as disproportionate to the misconduct.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Subhash Chandra Sharma, has elaborately considered the powers of the Labour Court as also of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to interference with the punishment awarded by the employers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been held by the Supreme Court that for interference either by the Labour Court or by the High Court with the punishment imposed by the management against the workman, it must be found that it was in any way 'shockingly disproportionate' to the nature of the charges found proved against him.
11. In the present case, as noticed even by the Tribunal it has been admitted by the respondent-conductor before the Labour Court that he had been punished on 21 earlier occasions for his acts of misconduct during the period 1986 to 1993 though with minor penalties.
12. Despite the facts as found in the present case, the Labour Court by wrongly relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v B.M. Patil and Another , had passed an award directing reinstatement with 50% back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. The legality of the Labour Court's award being questioned by the appellant Corporation before this Court in writ jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the view taken by the Labour Court by merely holding that denial of back wages will be of 75%.
13. In our opinion, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the standard or extent of evidence which is required to be led in by the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the charge of non-issuance of tickets despite collection of fares from the passengers for proved misconduct of pilferage and past history records of the respondent and non-examination of passengers during the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court in case the enquiry is found to be defective cannot be taken to be a ground for disproving the charge. Similarly, non-counting of cash available with the conductor as well cannot be held to be of any relevance in relation to the said charge. On the other hand, if the cash found with the conductor is found to be in excess of the permissible limit, it may have more corroborative value to sustain the charge.
14. On the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the management was 'shockingly disproportionate'. Therefore, neither the Labour Court nor this Court could have directed for reinstatement with payment of back wages as well thereby giving premium to the misconduct and on the otherhand punishing the appellant Corporation for tak-
ing appropriate disciplinary action against the erring employees. It is for the simple reason that once an employee is dismissed from service then the Corporation has to employ some other person may be on temporary or badly basis. The Corporation, which is a public undertaking, and has been established to render public services, cannot be subjected to suffer in this way. The Balance Sheets of the Corporation produced before us for the last three years show that out of the losses suffered by it, the bulk, almost two crores every year, is on account of back wages, which it is required to pay under the orders of the Courts in the cases relating to disciplinary proceedings.
15. Deprecating misplaced judicial sympathies tending to subvert the rule of law, the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extraction Limited v A. Unnikrishnan and Another , has held that.-
"In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and jusfity the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability".
16. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned' Single Judge and quash the award of the Labour Court restoring the order of the disciplinary authority awarding the major punishment of dismissal against the respondent.
17. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.