Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 24 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)111PLR55
ORDER N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Jaswinder Singh (For short the workman) challenging the award of the Labour Court, Ambala whereby the order terminating his services has been upheld.
2. The workman was employed as a conductor with Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar. One of the allegations levelled against him was that when his bus was checked, it was found that nine police officials were un-authorisedly travelling from Ambala Cantt to Jagadhari and the workman had not issued the tickets to them and he refused to hand over the Police vouchers to the inspecting team and misbehaved with that team. Another allegation is that on April 16, 1984, he was deployed on a special contract bus which had been hired by a marriage party and instead of allowing 52 persons of the Barat, he permitted 92 persons to travel therein thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. The third charge against the workman was that on November 21, 1985. The inspecting team found that he had charged bus fare from some passengers and has not issued the tickets to them and he thereby embezzled the Government funds to the tune of Rs. four. Three separate show cause notice were issued to the workman and he gave his replies which were not found satisfactory and consequently a regular departmental inquiry was held and enquiry officer appointed. The enquiry officer found that the charges stood proved against the workman and a report was accordingly submitted to the General Manager who was the punishing authority. The General Manager agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer terminated the services of the workman and his salary for the suspension period was restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.
3. On receipt of a notice from the Labour Court, the parties filed their respective statements of claim. The management examined the enquiry Officer and produced the inquiry proceedings. The workman also led evidence in support of his plea that he had not been afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against him. The Labour Court after hearing representatives of the parties agreed with the contentions of the management and upheld the order of termination. Consequently, the reference was decided in favour of the management and against the workman. It is this award that is now under challenge in the present petition.
4. The first charge against the workman was in regard to unauthorised travelling by nine police officials in the bus. The case of the department is that these Police officials had given their vouchers to the workman but he had not issued the tickets to them and refused to hand over these vouchers to the inspecting team and misbehaved with them. From the statements of the witnesses recorded by the enquiry Officer, it is established that the Police officials were travelling without tickets and that the workman did not hand over the Police vouchers to the inspecting team. As regards the charge of misbehaviour, the Labour Court has not indicated as to what the nature of the alleged misbehaviour was. There is, however, no embezzlement involved as it is not the case of the department that any money had passed to the workman which he did not account for.
5. As regards the second charge, the allegation is that the workman allowed 92 passengers to travel in a special contract bus which was hired for a marriage party and did not record this number in the relevant form. This has been held by the enquiry Officer to have been proved but the fact is that the marriage party deposited a sum of Rs. 295.15 p. as the face of the excess passengers on May 28, 1984 as per receipt No. 28/64. Even though the workman allowed excess passengers to travel in the bus there was no loss caused to the State exchequer because the excess fare had been paid.
6. Now coming to the third charge. The allegation is that the workman charged fare from some passengers and had not issued the tickets to them. If it were the charge of embezzlement would stand proved but according to the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the enquiry Officer, it is clear that after charging the fare, the workman was in the process of issuing the tickets and had punched a few of them when the inspecting team appeared on the scene. It cannot, therefore, be said with any certainty that the workman had embezzled the money and would not have issued the tickets. This charge in my opinion has not been proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that except for some irregularities no serious charge has been proved against the workman. The question that now arises is whether the extreme penalty of dismissal would be awarded to the workman. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the answer has to be in the negative. This contention was raised before the Labour Court and it was submitted that it should exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the quantum of punishment. The contention was, however, unjustifiably negatived by the Labour Court erroneously holding that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act were not applicable. It is true that if the charge of embezzlement had been proved, the Labour Court might have been justified in not exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act. Since no such charge has been established the punishment of dismissal in the circumstances of the case is wholly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and unjustified. It is settled law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can do what the Tribunal or the Labour Court could do under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that only some irregularities have been proved against the workman, a lenient view in the matter has to be taken more so when he has remained out of employment since the year 1987 and must have by now learnt a lesson of his life. The penalty of dismissal is not called for and reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages will meet the ends of justice. Loss of back wages is enough punishment for him.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court quashed. The workman will be entitled to reinstatement without back wages. He is directed to report for duty within one month from today. There is no order as to costs.