Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kantibhai N. Parmar on 6 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)3GLR2669
JUDGMENT Sharad D. Dave, J.
1. The petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as GSRTC for short) has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 15.03.2002 passed by the President of the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 93 of 1998 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent without back wages but with continuity of services.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are such that the respondent herein was working as a conductor with the petitioner - Corporation since many years. On 15.12.1994, he had not issued tickets to four passengers even if he had collected fare of total Rs.14/- from them. Statements to this effect of the passengers and conductor were recorded and as the conductor had signed the said statement, charge sheet was issued. After departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from his services by an order dated 28.10.1995. Against this order of dismissal, the respondent preferred Reference (LCP) No. 93 of 1998 which was partially allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the respondent without back wages but with continuity of services, against which judgment and award the present petition is filed.
3. At the time of arguments, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Labour Court has materially erred in holding that no evidence in respect of misappropriation of money committed by the respondent is produced in the departmental inquiry and also in holding that the inquiry officer himself was not sure about the combination of the tickets and therefore inquiry is vitiated. In support of her submissions, Ms.Patel has relied on the decision in case of Regional Manager R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma reported in 2002 I CLR 150. In the said judgment, the conductor was found guilty of carrying passengers without tickets and on inquiry, he was found guilty and was dismissed. The Labour Judge, in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement without back wages. The said decision was reversed by the Division Bench. While restoring the order of the learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that discretion under Section 11-A has to be used judiciously and in this case dismissal of conductor was proper.
4. Ms.Patel also relied on the judgment in case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 517, wherein it was held that where the charge of misappropriation of goods was established in the domestic inquiry, and the delinquent employee was dismissed, the Labour Court erred in directing his reinstatement with 25% back wages on the ground that his past record was without blemish and also held that a proved case of misappropriation does not call for any sympathy.
5. Against the aforesaid submissions, Mr.K.M.Paul learned advocate for the respondent herein submitted that on reading the papers of the departmental inquiry, it seems that the respondent had issued tickets to the passengers but as the denomination of the tickets were different, it created difficulty in counting. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the passengers whose statements have been recorded have not been examined in the departmental inquiry. The so called weigh bill is also not produced by the department. Only on the statement of the reporter, the inquiry officer has held the respondent guilty. It is further submitted by Mr.Paul that the amount involved is very meagre i.e. Rs.14/- and the punishment of dismissal for such a meagre amount is very harsh and therefore the order of the Labour Court is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties, perused the papers and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
7. From the default card of the present respondent produced at Annexure `B', it appears that about 15 reports of misappropriation were recorded against the present respondent and more than once he was removed from service for temporary period by way of punishment.
8. In the case of Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on another judgment in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti reported in JT 2001(2) SC 72, wherein it was held that in such cases where the 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 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 result in financial loss to the road transport corporation.
9. In the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores ltd.) and others (supra), it is held in paras 3, 6 and 8 as under : "After finding that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the management removing the workmen from service and reinstating them with 25% back wages. 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. In case of proved misappropriation there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases."
10. A reference deserves to be made to the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M.Chandrasekhar Reddy reported in JT 2005(1) SC 474, wherein a reference is made to finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber company Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. reported in 1973 1 SCC 813 that "...Once the misconduct is proved, the tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimization." "...If a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct, the tribunal, even though it has now power to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the management, will have to give every cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer..."
11. In view of the past record of the respondent workmen, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the department was right in dismissing the respondent from service as inspite of repeated warnings, the respondent was repeatedly committing the misappropriation. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 93 of 1998 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent without back wages but with continuity of services is required to be quashed and set aside and the order of the department dismissing the respondent is required to be restored.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 93 of 1998 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent without back wages but with continuity of services, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.