Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs K.R. Mahalingaiah And Anr. on 28 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)KARLJ445, (2003)IILLJ766KANT, 2003 LAB. I. C. 3040, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1159, (2003) 98 FACLR 774, (2003) 4 SERVLR 370, (2003) 2 CURLR 849, (2003) 3 SCT 469, (2003) 2 LABLJ 766, (2003) 3 KANT LJ 445, (2003) 2 LAB LN 986, 2003 LABLR 510
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
ORDER N. Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award of the Labour Court, dated 28-1-1999 passed in I.D. No. 335 of 1994 by the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
2. The facts leading to this case are as under.--
The respondent was appointed as a conductor in the petitioner- Corporation in the year 1990. The respondent was on duty on 25-9-1991 in vehicle No. KA 25F 48 on route No. 236/1 plying from Peenya II Stage to Kengeri Satellite Town. The checking officials checked the bus at Kengeri Bus Stand and found that the respondent was in possession of unaccounted excess cash of Rs. 97.75. On the very same day a memo was served on the respondent at the spot which he received and acknowledged. Thereafter, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry and a charge-sheet was issued to him. He failed to' submit any reply. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was initiated against the respondent. After detailed enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the respondent is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority acting on the said report and also taking note of the fact that the respondent was found guilty earlier on 75 occasions proceeded to pass an order dismissing him from service on 13-8-1994. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, contending that one passenger gave Rs. 100 note and purchased ticket and while getting down from the bus the said passenger has forgotten to collect back the change. In spite of the said explanation the checking officials disbelieved the say of the workman, issued a charge memo and therefore he contended that the charge levelled against him is without any substance. The Enquiry Officer without extending sufficient opportunity and without considering the explanation of the respondent as well as his defence witnesses has submitted its findings holding the first party as guilty of charges levelled against him. Therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority are illegal and contrary to the mandatory requirements of Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 and therefore sought for setting aside the order of dismissal.
3. The petitioner filed its counter-statement reiterating the aforesaid facts and contended that enquiry held was legal and valid, full opportunity was given to the respondent who has participated in the enquiry and it is only on appreciation of the material on record the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding the respondent as guilty of the charges levelled against him and the disciplinary authority taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also taking note of the fact that on an earlier occasion 75 times he has been found guilty has proceeded to pass the order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner submits the punishment imposed on the respondent is proportionate to the gravity of charges proved and therefore submits the said order do not call for any interference.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed by the Labour Court.--
1. Whether domestic enquiry held against first party is fair and proper?
2. Whether order of dismissal passed by the second party management on 13-8-1994 in No. KST.BTS.DFL.D7.5346 : 5245 is sustainable?
3. Whether first party is entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages and other service benefits?
4. To what order?
5. On 15-6-1996 the respondent filed a memo conceding the fairness of the disciplinary enquiry and stated that he has no objections to mark the enquiry records except the defaulters sheet. But he made it clear he would not admit the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiring Officer and sought for an opportunity to address arguments regarding the perversity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also regarding quantum of punishment inflicted. Thereafter, the documents were marked as Exhibits Ml to M14 which were produced before the Enquiry Officer and the defaulters sheet was also marked as M15. After hearing the arguments of both the parties the Labour Court held that the respondent was in possession of excess cash of Rs. 97.75 and the explanation offered by the respondent and the evidence of WW1-Adinarayana examined by the respondent in support of his explanation is not convincing and therefore rejected the case of the respondent. However, the Labour Court proceeded on the premise that the burden of proving the misconduct was on the petitioner and the same has not been proved. It further observed merely because a conductor has some excess amount it cannot straightaway amount to pilferage as no evidence was led by the petitioner against the respondent to prove the misconduct and same is not proved. Further, it observed no standing instructions or administrative orders forbidding conductors carrying excess cash is produced and merely because the explanation offered by the conductor turns out to be false it does not follow that prosecution has established the allegations. Therefore, the Court held when the misconduct is not proved, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is liable to be set aside and accordingly the order of dismissal was set aside.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Tapsi Subbaiah, submitted firstly that once it is established that the conductor was in possession of excess cash of Rs. 97.75 and the explanation offered by the conductor is not accepted by the Court, the Court has to draw an adverse inference and in that view of the matter the finding of the Labour Court that petitioner has failed to establish that this excess cash found in the possession of the respondent is on account of the pilferage is not proved cannot be sustained. Secondly, she contended the conductor's cash check form which is marked as Ex. Ml clearly provides for an entry being made regarding personal cash according to T-10 where the conductor has to declare before boarding the bus the cash which he has retained in his pocket. Any amount found in excess of this amount mentioned in the conductor's cash check form cannot be said to be the conductor's personal cash and it is for him to offer an explanation regarding the said excess amount found and if he fails to offer an explanation or if the explanation offered is not found convincing then the only inference to be drawn is that it is an amount on account of pilferage. Lastly, she contended M15, the history sheet of the respondent clearly discloses on an earlier occasion 75 times he was involved in the misconduct and despite ample opportunities given to him earlier he has failed to improve his working and continued to indulge in defrauding the money belonging to the Corporation and therefore the management had no option except to pass an order of dismissal and therefore the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. The Labour Court ignored these undisputed facts and committed a serious error in setting aside the order of dismissal and passing the award in favour of the respondent.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri S.B. Mukkannappa submitted merely because the conductor was found to be in possession of excess cash, in the absence of any positive evidence to show the pilferage, there cannot be a finding that the misconduct alleged is proved. In the instant case though the explanation offered by the respondent is not accepted by the Labour Court that does not mean it is false. But, the Labour Court rightly held that the management has not produced any positive evidence to prove the charge of pilferage and therefore was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and ordering consequential benefits. Therefore, he submits the award passed by the Labour Court do not call for any interference and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arise for my consideration is as under.--
(i) Whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority when the respondent conceded the fairness of the domestic enquiry?
(ii) What order?
9. The undisputed fact which emerges from the material on record is when the checking squad checked the bus which was conducted by the respondent on 25-9-1991 at Kengeri Bus Stand the respondent was found to be in possession of excess cash of Rs. 97.75. Ex. M1, conductor's cash check form clearly shows the total cash which was in the hand of the conductor at the time of checking was Rs. 1,145.75, the total value of the tickets sold was Rs. 1,018.50. Therefore, the conductor was found to be in possession of Rs. 127.75 excess cash. The conductor had declared at the time of boarding the bus Rs. 30.00 as his personal cash. After giving deduction to that Rs. 30.00 he was found to be in possession of excess cash of Rs. 97.75. Therefore, the petitioner-management has established the possession of excess cash of Rs. 97.75 on the date of the incident. It is relevant to notice that after the charge-sheet was served on the respondent he did not choose to file any reply at all. The explanation offered by the respondent insofar as possessing the aforesaid excess cash was that one passenger gave Rs. 100 note and purchased ticket and while getting down from the bus the said passenger has forgotten to collect back the change. In support of the said plea he has examined WW1, one Adinarayana, the passenger said to have been paid Rs. 100.00 while purchasing the ticket and who has not received the change. Both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court have concurrently held that this case put forth by the respondent cannot be believed and they have rejected the said case. After going through the evidence on record, I do not find any good ground to interfere with these concurrent finding of fact recorded by these two fact-finding authorities.
10. After the management established the fact that the conductor was in possession of excess cash and the explanation offered by him was rejected was there any further duty cast upon the management to adduce any evidence to prove the charge of misconduct. The Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the management ought to have adduced independent evidence to prove this charge of misconduct notwithstanding the fact that the explanation offered by the workman is not acceptable. On this question of burden of proof it is necessary to have a look at the law on the point. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh, dealing with the rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act applicable to the domestic enquiry has held as under.--
"4. It is well-settled that in a 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. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by Counsels on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair-play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic Tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the. Courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, 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. The 'residuum' rule to which Counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence - not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground".
11. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation and Anr. v. Ananda Chandra Prusty, has held as under.--
"5. In a disciplinary or a departmental inquiry, the question of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and the nature of explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. In this sense, the learned Counsellor the appellant may be justified in complaining that the standard of proof stipulated by the High Court in this case sounds inappropriate to a disciplinary inquiry. At the same time we must say that certain observations made by the inquiry officer in his report do lend themselves to the criticism offered by the High Court.
6. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us hereinabove viz., that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of proof, always lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry, The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanation. For example take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondent's case was that those notings were based upon certain documents produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings made by the respondent".
12. Dealing with a case arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, dealing with burden of proof has held as under.--
"7. .... To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe. If this be the true nature of the burden resting on the prosecution, no presumption at all need be raised because apart from the presumption, the prosecution would have to prove that the money was accepted by the accused and that it was accepted as a bribe. It is plain that if the prosecution proves the acceptance of the amount by the accused and the amount does not represent legal remuneration in any form or of any kind, the accused must establish that the amount was not accepted by him as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. As held in V.D. Jhingan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the accused can establish his case by preponderance of probabilities, that is to say, he need not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt".
13. Therefore, it becomes clear when the charge against the conductor was that he was in possession of excess cash and when he fails to offer a satisfactory, explanation for having the said excess cash it amounts to the conductor possessing the said amount by way of pilferage. The burden of proving the said charge is always on the management. What the management is expected to prove is that the conductor is in possession of excess cash. If the conductor denies the said charge, management has to adduce evidence to show that he is in possession of excess cash. But once the possession of the excess cash is either admitted or proved by evidence, then the burden of proof shifts on the conductor to show that the said amount either belongs to him or belongs to the passengers and it is not on account of any pilferage. When the conductor takes a specific stand that the said excess cash belongs to a particular passenger who has failed to collect the change, the entire burden of proving the said explanation offered by him is on him. When the respondent adduced evidence by examining himself and by independent evidence or by examining that passenger to whom the said excess cash belongs, if the case pleaded by the respondent is proved then the question of pilferage would not arise. But, if the conductor fails to prove the plea which he has raised or when the Court does not accept the evidence adduced by such conductor then the only inference that could be drawn from the circumstances of the case is that the excess cash in the possession of the conductor is nothing but amount which is pilferage. In fact a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar situation in the case of B.M.T.C. v. Fakruddin, W.A. No 7169 of 1999 has held as under.--
"The approach of the Labour Court that the money is collected from the passengers without issuing tickets or any other irregularity is not proper and legal. Once excess amount is found, the burden is on the conductor to explain how he got possession of the excess amount. When he has failed to explain, the only presumption that has to be drawn is that he collected the amount belonging to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and he collected the same from the passengers without issuing the tickets. Further, according to the management, the conductor was involved in 67 cases of misconduct. The explanation of the conductor that he had carried Rs. 300.00 for purchasing a sari for his sister's marriage is contrary to the conduct of the conductor. If really, he carried Rs. 300.00 nothing barred him to report the same to the Traffic Controller before starting of the bus, when he had reported that he had excess amount of Rs. 25.00. This conduct of the conductor negates the plea that the money belongs to him. Therefore, in view of the above said circumstances, the only presumption that can be drawn is that the money belonged to the KSRTC and the conductor might have collected the same by not issuing the tickets to the passengers. This strong presumption has not been rebutted by the conductor by adducing evidence, as the burden is on him to explain. In the cases relied on by the Labour Court, the aspect of the burden lies on the conductor under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was not considered".
14. On the question of burden of proof it is also useful to refer to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under.--
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him".
Therefore, when the respondent specifically contends that the excess cash found belongs to a passenger, the burden of proving the said fact is upon him. If he fails to discharge the said burden then the management which has established the fact of the respondent being in possession of excess cash, is entitled to request the Courts to draw an inference that the said money belongs to the KSRTC and the conductor has collected the same by not issuing the tickets to the passengers. Therefore, the Labour Court was in error in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer which was based on evidence and in placing the burden wrongly on the management and then holding that the management had not discharged the burden.
15. The next question that arise for consideration is once the misconduct alleged is proved whether the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the charge proved and whether a case for exercise of discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is made out. In this regard it is useful to refer to few recent judgments of the Supreme Court on the point.
(i) In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, it is held as under.--
"6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court in such cases when on checking it is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.
7. In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, but we are informed that in the meantime the respondent has already superannuated. .... .".
(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, 2002-I-LLJ-234 (SC) affirming the law laid down in the aforesaid case of B.S. Hulikatti, has held as under:--
"4. This Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation's case, supra, has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases of the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.
5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the Single Judge in the present case that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under Section 11-A, the Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal".
(iii) In the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited), Mangalore and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Ors., it is held as under.--
"3. The question involved in these appeals is - whether the High Court was justified in confirming the order passed by the Labour Court reinstating the respondent workmen with 25% back wages in spite of specific finding of fact that the charges of breach of trust and misappropriation of goods for the value given in the said charges had been clearly established. Apparently, it would be an unjustified direction to reinstate an employee against whom charge of misappropriation is established. A proved act of misappropriation cannot be taken lightly even though a number of such misappropriation cases remain undisclosed and such employees or others amass wealth by such means. In any case, misappropriation cannot be rewarded or legalised by reinstatement in service with full or part of back wages.
. .....
6. ..... Once an act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well-settled. Re: Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, . In Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary, this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that the alleged misconduct of the conductor was an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65 to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering at Rs. 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the waybill as having received the amount of Rs. 2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs. 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that the Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited v. Kala Singh, this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting milk from various centers and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centers and also inflated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents, The Court held (Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited's case, supra, pages 161-62, para 4) that in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the management had lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to grant relief with minor penalty".
16. Coming to the disciplinary authority taking note of the past records of the petitioner before inflicting the punishment is concerned, Regulation 25 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Regulations mandates that the disciplinary authority shall take note of the past record of the employee while imposing penalty when misconduct is proved. It is in pursuance of the mandatory provisions, the disciplinary authority has rightly taken note of 75 instances of past misconduct and has imposed the punishment of dismissal. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. A. Ramanna, ILR 2001 Kar. 2914 has held as under.--
"We are also of the view that the Labour Court erred in this regard in holding that the past record of the workman should be ignored for the purpose of examining the proportionality or the quantum of punishment. We say this for two reasons. Firstly, for the reason that past record of the workman is an aspect which finds statutory recognition in Regulation 25 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 which gives a statutory recognition to the past record of a workman namely, that the past record is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while deciding on the quantum of punishment.
To say that taking into consideration past record without either apprising the workman of the same or without issuing show-cause notice proposing the punishment to be imposed when the past record is also taken into consideration will amount to violation of principles of natural justice may not be very apt as Regulation 25 governing the same is statutory and it is not as though a surprise is spring on the workman. If the workman had suffered earlier punishment which again will be within his knowledge, the question of workman being ignorant of the same also does not arise. Moreover, past record is not a material for holding the delinquent/workman as guilty of a charge in the present enquiry but is only a circumstance to be taken into account while determining the commensurate penalty. For these reasons we hold that the Labour Court is in error in refusing to take into consideration or not taking the past record as a circumstance justifying the punishment of dismissal which had been imposed by the disciplinary authority and for not sustaining the order of dismissal. Secondly and more importantly, we are also of the view that the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority having taken into consideration the past record of the workman and having relied upon the same and this being part of the record before the Labour Court and the Labour Court having set aside the domestic enquiry as not being fair and proper and having allowed opportunity to lead evidence to the parties, the past record of the workman was an aspect which was well-within the knowledge of the parties including the workman. The Labour Court itself having referred to this aspect of the matter, it is very obvious that the workman was aware of this aspect and Court have placed material and even could have made appropriate submissions on this aspect before the Labour Court. In this context we are of the very clear view that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the reliance and consideration of the past record of the workman on the aspect of quantum of punishment and the order of dismissal being based on the same cannot be sustained as being in violation of the principles of natural justice".
17. In fact it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had no notice of this past misconduct and therefore that could not be made the basis for imposing the penalty of dismissal. It is relevant to point out that after the respondent was found guilty of misconduct, the disciplinary authority issued Ex. M12, show-cause notice enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer. In the said notice it was specially mentioned that he has been found guilty on 75 occasions earlier. In the reply given at Ex. M13, he did not dispute the said fact. In the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority the authority has specifically referred to the 75 cases of past misconduct. When the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court challenging the order of dismissal in the entire claim petition there is no whisper denying this fact of he being found guilty on 75 occasions earlier. When the respondent in the claim petition did not challenge this portion of the order of the disciplinary authority taking note of respondent's past conduct of 75 times it is not open to the respondent to contend that he had no notice of the past misconduct. In fact Ex. M15 which is produced before the Labour Court is the record of past conduct of 75 times. The said fact is not in dispute. Under these circumstances when the respondent has already been found guilty on 75 occasions within a span of one year from the date of his appointment the disciplinary authority was justified in taking note of the past conduct and in holding that despite ample opportunities given earlier the respondent has failed to improve his ways of working and continue to indulge in KSRTC money. When he was issued with a show-cause notice to explain the past cases he has not explained convincingly and therefore the punishment of dismissal imposed for this grave misconduct is proportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the respondent. Therefore, the question of exercising any discretionary power under Section 11-A by the Labour Court insofar as imposition of punishment also would not arise for consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Hence, I pass the following order.--
18. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is restored.
Parties to bear their own costs.