Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Ram vs Prtc Patiala And Anr on 24 December, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009
RESERVED ON: NOVEMBER 04, 2014
DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 24, 2014
Sadhu Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.SP Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant petition is directed against the award dated 8.9.2009, Annexure P3, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and the action of the Management in removing him from service has been upheld.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the respondent - Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as a Conductor on 16.1.1966. He continued to serve upto 5.6.1997 and his services were terminated on 6.6.1997. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that while on duty on Bus No.9194 on the Patiala to Nauhrian route on 3.3.1996 SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.26 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 2 checking was done by a team of officials and it was found that the petitioner had not entered one ticket booklet containing tickets of denomination of `10/- each pertaining to route falling in Himachal Pradesh in his way bill. In the checking, it was found that the passengers were travelling in groups and if the bus was not checked by the checking staff, then the petitioner would have easily re-sold the said tickets after getting them back from the passengers. Allegation in a nut-shell was that the petitioner in such manner had the intent to mis-appropriate a sum of `530/-. Upon an enquiry report having been furnished against the petitioner, his services were terminated vide order dated 6.6.1997, Annexure P1, passed by the Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. Upon an industrial dispute having been raised, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Patiala and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry? OPR 1A.Whether workman committed misconduct? OPR
2. Whether the services of workman stands validly terminated? OPR
3. Relief.
3. Issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue and vide order dated 14.7.2004, the Labour Court decided the same in favour of the petitioner-workman and against the Management.
Since the domestic enquiry had been held by the Labour Court to be not fair and proper, as such, evidence was adduced before the Labour Court itself by the Management to prove the allegations of mis-conduct against the workman.
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK2014.12.26 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 3
4. The impugned award, dated 8.9.2009, would reveal that the Labour Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record has recorded a finding of mis-conduct against the workman and is to the following effect:
".......Thus, it could be easily inferred that Sadhu Ram had done so with the malafide intention to re-issue the said tickets on the next trip, after getting back the same from the passengers who were travelling in groups. So, it is evident that the workman by doing so, intended to cause monetary loss of `530/- to the respondent-Corporation. As per PRTC (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1981, negligence of duty resulting in or likely to result in monetary loss exceeding `50/- to the Corporation, amounts to misconduct. So, it is proved on the record that workman Sadhu Ram committed misconduct."
5. Having recorded such finding, the Labour Court has proceeded further in considering and examining the past record of the workman and as such, has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and has taken a view that the punishment of removal from service is not dis-proportionate to the mis-conduct committed by the workman on 3.3.1996.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the pleadings on record have been perused.
7. The finding of mis-conduct recorded by the Labour Court is clearly based on an "inference" that the workman had not SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.26 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 4 entered one ticket booklet in his way bill. Furthermore, the finding is only as regards an "intent" to have caused monetary loss of `530/- to the respondent-Corporation. There is no finding as regards embezzlement or mis-appropriation of money having been committed by the workman. Under such circumstances, the question that would arise for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether the Labour Court has exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act in a judicious manner?
8. It is by now well settled that after the introduction of Section 11-A of the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of mis-conduct. Such area of discretion is certainly not unlimited and can be exercised under Section 11-A of the Act only on existence of certain factors like punishment being shockingly dis-proportionate to the gravity of the mis-conduct or the existence of any mitigating circumstance which require the reduction as regards punishment/penalty. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1996 (1) SCT 617; U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma & Ors., 2000(2) SCT 312 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Naravade, 2005(2) SCT 236.
9. In the considered view of this Court, the Labour Court while declining to exercise its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and in not considering the imposition of a lesser punishment than removal from service has overlooked a few crucial aspects. SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.26 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 5 Firstly, the finding of mis-conduct recorded against the petitioner is based on an inference and only with regard to an "intention" which he had to cause monetary loss of `530/- to the respondent- Corporation. There was no actual embezzlement or mis- appropriation of funds. Secondly, the Labour Court was swayed with the past adverse record of the petitioner-workman. It would be apposite to notice that the Labour Court was examining the validity of an order dated 6.6.1997 passed by the respondent- Corporation whereby extreme penalty of removal from service had been imposed upon the workman. Such order dated 6.6.1997 has been placed on record and appended as Annexure P1 along with the instant petition. Perusal thereof would clearly reveal that the past adverse service record had not even been touched upon and as such, had not even formed the basis for imposition of penalty of removal from service by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. As such, the Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act and while considering the question of imposition of a lesser punishment has erred in not confining its consideration only as regards the alleged mis-conduct of 3.3.1996 justifying the imposition of penalty of removal from service. Even otherwise, the Labour Court has overlooked the fact that for the past mis- demeanours committed by the petitioner-workman, he had already been imposed punishment of varying degrees and had suffered the same. Still further, the Labour Court has turned a blind eye to the length of service of the workman which was concededly of 31 years.
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK2014.12.26 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17115 OF 2009 6
10. The mis-conduct attributed and proved against the workman and coupled with his past service record may be good ground dis-entitling his retention or continuance in service but the same do not justify the imposition of penalty of removal from service thereby forfeiting the benefits having accrued in lieu of 31 years of service rendered.
11. As such, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, I allow this writ petition partly and set aside the impugned award also in part. Instead of remanding the case to the Labour Court to re-consider the quantum of punishment within its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, I deem it appropriate to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and substitute the punishment awarded to the petitioner-workman from removal from service to that of compulsory retirement from service. It is directed that the petitioner-workman would now be treated to have been compulsorily retired with effect from the date penalty of removal from service had been imposed. It would necessarily follow that the petitioner-workman would be deemed to be entitled to all admissible retiral benefits as per Rules/policy.
12. Writ petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
DECEMBER 24, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK
2014.12.26 13:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document