Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987
Date of Decision:04.09.2008
Jarnail Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Jarnail Singh- workman for quashing the impugned award dated 23.9.1987 Annexure P.1 passed by the Labour Court.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 24.2.1983, when the petitioner was Conductor on Bus No.6468, he was found to have charged fare @ Rs.2.15 per head from eight passengers travelling in a group from Kotkapura to Baghapurana, though the tickets were not issued to them. When unpunched tickets of the value of the amount embezzled were demanded from him by the checking party at Samalsar, he did not part with such tickets. He prevented the checking staff to give their observations on the way bill. On 29.1.1983, when he was conductor on bus No.6772, his bus was checked at Moga by Inspector Chand Ram. The petitioner was found on duty without uniform and the first aid box. On 8.3.1983, he was conductor on bus No.6732 when the same was checked at Shamatkhera by Inspector Joginder Singh, he was found to have issued to four passengers tickets short by 60 paise and two others by 80 paise. When he was charge- Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -2- sheeted he did not plead guilty thereto. After inquiry, he was found guilty. He was served with a show cause notice to which he filed reply. After considering the same, his services were terminated. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court vide impugned award dated 23.9.1987 held that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that the petitioner was working as conductor with them when his services were terminated on 30.9.1983. It has been averred that the Labour Court, Bathinda has rightly held that inquiry was fair and proper. This petition may be dismissed with costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that even if it be assumed that the inquiry was fair and proper, nonetheless, the Labour Court was bound to re-appreciate the evidence produced in inquiry and then come to its independent findings as to whether any misconduct was proved or not. It has been wrongly held that it is not within the scope of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to probe into the truth of the charges as long as the inquiry is fair and proper. Once the Labour Court was satisfied that the misconduct was proved, then it was to decide the question of quantum of punishment. If a passenger travels without ticket, he is bound to pay ten times fare. Any passenger who travels without ticket would naturally put the blame on the Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -3- conductor. It is in these circumstances that, it becomes necessary that the statements of the passengers should have been recorded. The checking staff must find as to whether the blame falls on the passenger or the conductor. The petitioner was not provided any help of co-worker, though the management was represented by a Presenting Officer. It was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to tell the petitioner that he is entitled to engage co-employee for help in the inquiry which has not been done. The question which arise for determination by this Court is as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner is illegal or that the Labour Court has wrongly held that the inquiry was fair and proper and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab refuted these submissions by contending that as is borne out from the award itself, the petitioner had admitted that the inquiry was held and he had participated therein and furthermore the inquiry was found fair and proper. The law nowhere lays down that the statements of the passengers ought to have been recorded either by the Inquiry Officer or the Labour Court and that being so, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the Labour Court. To buttress these stances, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made in re: Kirpal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh and another, 1993 (3) Recent Services Judgments 338, Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad and another, 1999 (4) Recent Services Judgments 777, State of Punjab and others v. Nirmal Singh, 1987 Punjab Acts and Precedents 24 (Punjab and Haryana), State of Haryana and another v. Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -4- Rattan Singh, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492, Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, 2006 (5) Service Law Reporter 721, Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghyanshyam Sharma, 2002 (3) Recent Services Judgments 77, Pritam Singh v. Labour Court, Bathinda and others, 1999 (3) Recent Services Judgments 290.
On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are unsustainable for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
In the impugned award, it has been observed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court that "at any rate, the checking of the bus by flying squad is admitted by the workman in reply to the chargesheet and the workman himself suggested to Prithvi Raj and Sarwan Singh in the cross- examination that eight passengers were apprehended by the checking staff without tickets." This observation leave no scope for doubt that the petitioner himself had admitted that eight passengers were apprehended by the checking staff without tickets. Thus, there was no need to examine such passengers. It has been further observed that "in the cross-examination directed at Inspector Sarwan Singh of the flying squad, it was suggested by the workman that the passengers who were found travelling without tickets had been charged by the conductor of the bus, which had broken down. The suggestion was refuted by the Inspector who said "No this is incorrect, we confronted the conductor (the workman) with those passengers to his satisfaction." In view of these observations, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance. The matter does not rest here. In re: Rattan Singh (supra), a bus conductor of a State Transport Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -5- undertaking was charge-sheeted for not collecting fares from certain passengers. The statements of passengers were not recorded. The Apex Court ruled as under:-
"that 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 evaluting such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. 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. It cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re- evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal."
It can be reasonably culled out from these observations that the impugned award cannot be held unsustainable merely because the statements of the passengers were not recorded. Further in re: Nirmal Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -6- Singh (supra), it has been held that there is no need to produce passengers. The statement of Inspector who checked the passenger and cash of the conductor relevant to be relied upon. In re: Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad and another (supra), it has been observed that "the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same could not be agitated before High Court in writ jurisdiction." Thus in view of these observations, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the relevant and material evidence produced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. In re: Kirpal Singh (supra), it has been observed as under:-
"It is one thing to say that the assistance of a co-workman was denied and altogether different thing to say that the co- workman be called and the enquiry may be ensued only thereafter. Further, this point was not raised before the Labour Court. While dealing with issue No.1 which is with regard to enquiry being proper or vitiated for some reason, it has been held that the workman in fact in his statement did not make any grievance with regard to the conduct of enquiry nor did he say anything which could possibly suggest that he was not allowed fair and reasonable opportunity either to cross examine the Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -7- witnesses who appeared against him or in leading defence to prove his own case. If this point was taken in the pleadings before the Labour Court and evidence was led, it was possible for the management to rebut the same and prove that in fact assistance of a co-workman was never denied to the petitioner and that the presence of the co-workman was not to be secured by it. In view of the fact that this matter was not agitated before the Labour Court and in fact no question whatsoever was raised against the conduct of the enquiry, it shall not be just and equitable at this stage to go into this point and set aside the order of dismissal of petitioner from service. The next point raised by the learned counsel based on Full Bench Judgment of this Court in "The State of Haryana and others versus Ram Chander", A.I.R. 1976 Punjab & Haryana 381 is that the passengers who had boarded the bus and were not issued the tickets as alleged against the petitioner were admittedly not examined before the Enquiry Officer and the evidence of the Inspectors alone was not enough to prove the charges levelled against him. The evidence of Inspectors is said to be hear-say evidence and, therefore, inadmissible and unreliable. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel on the basis of law laid down in "State of Haryana and another versus Rattan Singh", 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492 and Sarup Singh, Ex-Conductor Versus The State of Punjab and others", 1989 (7) Services Law Reporter 328 has to be repelled."Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -8-
Harking back to the facts of the present case, in the background of the afore-quoted law, if the evidence of the Inspector is assumed for a little while to be hearsay, notwithstanding it cannot be discarded as it has reasonable nexus and credibility. As is borne out from the impugned award, it was not pointed out before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not provided the assistance of a co-worker. It was also not argued before the Labour Court that a request was made by the petitioner for getting the help of a co-worker and the same was either declined or remained undecided. Rather as has been mentioned in the impugned award, the workman admitted that the inquiry was held and he had participated therein. A glance through the observations made in the impugned award would reveal that a fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses who appeared against him. The impugned award tends to show that the petitioner himself had admitted certain material facts.
In the ultimate analysis, it is found that the termination of services of the petitioner does not smack of any illegality or infirmity. The learned Labour Court has acted in a right perspective by not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A. In view of the preceding discussion, I do not consider it proper to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed.
September 04, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/ No