Allahabad High Court
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs P.D. Dwivedi & Others on 7 January, 2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Judgment reserved on 6.09.2012) (Judgment delivered on 7.1.2013) Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21031 of 2007 Petitioner :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Regional Respondent :- P.D. Dwivedi & Others Petitioner Counsel :- J.N. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,H.K. Mishra Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against the award dated 17.10.2006 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.117 of 2003. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman-respondent no.1 who was a conductor with effect from 26.3.2003 was just and valid or not. The services had been terminated after domestic inquiry in which it was found that petitioner was carrying fourteen ticketless passengers on 5.10.2000. The inspection team on surprise inspection of the bus on 5.10.2000 found that out of eighty four passengers present in the bus, fourteen were not having any ticket even though they had given the fare to the bus conductor.
The defence of the workman-respondent no.1 was that eighteen passengers had boarded the bus from Lal khera and he had prepared the tickets of four passengers and was in the process of making tickets of the other passengers when inspection team stopped the bus.
If such an argument is accepted no conductor carrying ticket less passengers can be booked. He can always say that he was in the process of or going to make the tickets. The workman conductor categorically admitted that at the time of inspection fourteen passengers had not been issued tickets.
The Labour court held that in the domestic inquiry the Incharge of the Inspecting Team who had given report against the workman and who had been examined as management's witness in the domestic inquiry stated that on getting the signal to stop the bus was at once stopped and the workman conductor did not interfere in the inquiry which the inspecting team made with the passengers. These things were utterly irrelevant. On this ground (good conduct) workman could not be acquitted. It has been mentioned in the impugned award that neither other members of the inspecting team nor driver nor any passenger was examined. Examination of other members of the inspecting team was wholly irrelevant when Incharge had been examined. Driver has got no concern with the tickets. Supreme Court in N.W. Karnataka R.T.C. Vs. H.H.Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060 and Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v. Kamruddin, AIR 2009 SC 2528 has held that examination of ticketless passenger is not necessary.
It is also mentioned in the impugned award that the inquiry officer had mentioned in the report that burden to prove guilt was upon the workman which was legally incorrect. In this regard Labour court was right. Burden to prove guilt lies upon the employer. However, due to this mention of wrong principle alone inquiry report could not be set aside. There was sufficient material before the Inquiry officer particularly the admission of the workman which justified the finding of the guilt.
Accordingly, impugned award is liable to be and is hereby set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated the workman had crossed the age of superannuation on 31.3.2009 and had realised Rs.4,44,000/- and odd as back wages from the date of termination till 27.4.2007 on 16.10.2008. On 6.9.20012 when arguments were concluded learned counsel for the workman categorically stated that the amount which had been recovered by the workman was wrongly mentioned as Rs.4,497/- in para-7 of the Supplementary counter affidavit and it was merely a typing error and in-fact the workman had realised Rs.4,44,000/- and odd. In para-8 of the Supplementary counter affidavit it was stated that the cheque of Rs.1,67,000/- as wages for the period from 27.4.2007 to 31.3.2009 had been deposited by the petitioner employer before the Labour court however, it had not been paid to the workman and it was available in the office of the Labour court.
In this writ petition on 27.4.2007 conditional stay order was passed directing the petitioner to either reinstate respondent no.1 or pay wages last drawn by him with effect from the date of award or wages with effect from the date of the award last drawn by him should regularly be paid in accordance with Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Admittedly respondent no.2 was not reinstated.
Accordingly, it is directed that the amount of Rs.4,44,000/- and odd which has been realised by the workman shall not be refundable. However, the cheque of Rs.1,67,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner before the Labour court in the name of the workman shall be returned to the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above sympathetic relief to the workman-respondent no.1 (retention of Rs.4.44 lacs and odd).
Order Date :- 7.1.2013 RS