Delhi District Court
Sh. Tulsi Ram vs M/S Delhi Transport Corporation on 6 December, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA, POLC, FAST
TRACK-XXI, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
ID No. 506/06/97
Sh. Tulsi Ram,
Badge No. 19645,
R/o Plot No. 78/6,
Swarn Park,
Near Mundka,
Delhi-41. ..........Workman
Versus
M/s Delhi Transport Corporation,
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2. ............ Management
Date of Institution : 23.07.97
Date of reserving for award : 28.11.07
Date of award : 06.12.07
Appearances : AR for workman Smt. Rashmi Singh.
AR for the management Shri Hardwari Lal.
References : 1. Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti 2001-I LLJ 740 SC.
2. Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. vs. Ghanshyam Sharma
2002-1-LLJ 264.
2
3. 2007 V SLT 252 UPSRTC vs. Ram Kishan Arora.
4. 129 (2006) DLT 320 (DB) DCM Shriram Consolidated
Ltd vs. O.P. Gupta.
AWARD
01. Secretary (Labour) Govt. of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi vide his order No. F.24(95)/97-Lab./12564-68 dated 13.06.97
has referred the industrial dispute between M/s Delhi Transport
Corporation, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2 and its workman Sh. Tulsi
Ram, Badge No. 19645, R/o Plot No. 78/6, Swarn Park, Near
Mundka, Delhi-41 for adjudication as per the following terms of
reference:-
"Whether the removal from services of Shri
Tulsi Ram is illegal and/or unjustified and
if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
02. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant had
been working in the corporation as a conductor since April, 1983.
3
He was charge-sheeted on 9.5.95 on the allegations that he did not
issue tickets to 8 passengers, though he collected due fare from
them. A domestic enquiry was conducted against him on the basis
of the charges. He has challenged the enquiry on the ground that
it was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. Consequent upon
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was removed
from the services of the corporation by the Depot Manager w.e.f.
10.4.96. He has alleged that the punishment of removal imposed
upon him is highly disproportionate and unjustified. He has
claimed that he is unemployed since his illegal removal from
services and has not been able to seek any alternative employment
despite his best efforts. He has sought reinstatement in services
alongwith full back wages and consequential benefits.
03. To decide the present reference, following issues need to
be settled.
1.Whether the enquiry was not conducted in 4 accordance with the principles of natural justice and if so, its effect?
2. As per terms of reference.
04. In support of their case, parties were called upon to lead their respective evidence. Workman has examined himself as WW1 and proved his affidavit as Ex. WW1/A. In support of its case, management did not examine any witness.
05. I have heard AR for workman Ms. Rashmi Singh and AR for the management Shri Hardwari Lal and gone through the entire record including the rulings placed on record by the parties.
06. My findings on the issues are as hereunder.
Issue No. 1 :- Whether the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and if so, its effect?
Issue no. 1 was decided in favour of the management and against the workman vide order dated 20.10.07 5 holding that the enquiry conducted against the workman was in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
07. Issue No. 2 : As per terms of reference.
The workman was inducted into the corporation as a conductor in the year 1983. He was charge- sheeted on 9.5.95 vide Ex. WW1/M1 on the following allegations :-
"1. That on 9.4.95 while you were performing your duty with bus No. DL-1P-9348 of Interstate Route - Delhi Chandigarh, the checking officials intercepted your bus at Dera Basi at about 22.30 hours and detected during the course of checking that you had already collected Rs. 30/- for two tickets @ Rs. 15/- each from a group of two passengers who had boarded your bus at Ambala for Chandigarh, but you did not issue any ticket to them.
2. That on further checking, the checking officials found that you had already collected Rs. 90/- for six tickets @ Rs. 15/- each from a group of six passengers who had boarded 6 your bus at Ambala for Chandigarh but you did not issue any ticket to them.
3. That you punched eight tickets No. 001/57700 to 001/57707 in up direction when the checking officials were talking to the passengers who were found without ticket instead of surrendering the unpunched tickets to the checking officials.
4. That you refused to sign the passengers' statement of first group of two passengers recorded in your presence.
5. That you instigated a group of six passengers with the result they refused to give their statement to the checking officials and also they refused to disclose their names and addresses at your instigation.
Your above acts tantamount to misconduct within the meaning of Para 6, 7 and 21(iv) of the Executive Instructions (i.e. Duties of a Conductor) read with the Clause 19(b) (h) and (m) of the Standing orders governing 7 the conduct of D.T.C. employees."
On the basis of charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman. Consequent upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, workman was removed from the services w.e.f. 10.4.96. It has been alleged by the workman that the punishment of removal imposed upon him is highly disproportionate and unjustified and this court has got ample powers under section 11A to substitute the punishment awarded to the workman with lesser punishment. Under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases where the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. While holding that the punishment awarded was disproportionate, the court has to consider not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances do come into decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds position of trust where honesty and integrity are 8 inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such case has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.
08. I have gone through the past record of the workman which reflects that there are 15 adverse entries in his past record. On the earlier occasions also, he was punished for similar types of misconducts. On 18.1.86, his cash was found short by Rs. 27.55/- and he also misbehaved on duty. In the year 1986, he was warned for not displaying side board, for having refused to give the complaint book, refusal to accept the challan and mis-behaviour with the checking staff. His next due one increment was stopped with cumulative effect as he collected due fare from the passengers but issued them tickets of less denomination. He was again punished with stoppage of next due three increments with 9 cumulative effect for resale of tickets to the passengers in the year 1988. He was reduced to lower stage by two stages in the time scale of conductors for having misbehaved with the checking staff and refusing to hand over the hand block on 28.04.89. His next due one increment was stopped with cumulative effect for refusing to give the way bill, complaint book and misbehaviour with the checking staff on 09.10.89. He did not display the side board and threatened the checking staff on 31/8/92 for which he was warned. On 25.12.92, he refused to give the way bill, complaint book and misbehaved with the checking staff for which he was censured. He was again suspended with immediate effect pending enquiry into the case, as he did not issue tickets after collecting the full fare on 27.1.95. The main duty of a conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and deposit the same with the corporation which he failed to do. To order for his reinstatement would amount to misplaced sympathy towards the workman. I am fortified in my opinion by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti 2001-I LLJ 740 SC, wherein it was held that the 10 bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to 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 like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside. In the same strain is Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. vs. Ghanshyam Sharma 2002-1-LLJ 264. I also place reliance upon 2007 V SLT 252 UPSRTC vs. Ram Kishan Arora, wherein the workman committed misconduct of non- issuance of tickets to 35 passengers, on the basis of which he was dismissed from service. High Court reduced the punishment to stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. The Apex court of the country held that commission of breach of trust by a person holding position of trust is a serious misconduct. Since the charges levelled against the workman were grave, High Court was not at all justified in reducing punishment. The Apex Court held that 11 the punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority was justified. The role of administrative authority is primary in imposing punishment and that of the court is secondary. The labour court should not interfere unless there has been extensive infringement of rights as held in 129 (2006) DLT 320 (DB) DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd vs. O.P. Gupta. In view of the above observations, I hold that the punishment of removal awarded to the workman Tulsi Ram is legal and justified. He is not entitled for any relief from the court.
09. Reference is answered accordingly. Six copies of the award be sent to the Secretary (Labour) for publication within 30 days. File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON: 06.12.2007 (NISHA SAXENA) PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI 12