Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In this appeal, the Shri R.S. Hegde learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation contended that the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that the inquiry was just and fair could not have come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the corporation to have examined the passengers for the purpose of establishing its charge against the respondent. He also contended that the corporation had produced before the Labour Court a list of prior such misconduct committed by the respondent on similar charges. A copy of the said list is annexed to this appeal as annexure P-1 wherein it is noticed the respondent prior to the order of dismissal in this case was charged number of times for offences of non-issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination and collecting the correct fare from the passengers and not remitting the same to the corporation. The list shows for the above said offences the respondent has been given various punishments including censure, reprimand, fine, stoppage of increment etc. Learned counsel also submitted that the view of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge that the misconduct alleged against the respondent could only be established by the examination of passengers is impracticable because as in the present cse and quite often the misconduct comes into light only when the vehicle comes back to the depot after dropping the passengers and at the time of depositing the collection for the day if surprise check is made at that time and such misconduct is detected and it is next to impossible for the corporation to trace the passengers and bring them before the inquiry officer to establish their case that is why the corporation has from its regulation made it mandatory that the conductor should at no point of time carry more than Rs.5/- as their personal money and if they are found in excess of that same will indicate that the excess money in question was collected by non- issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination. In such circumstances, it was not necessary or possible for the appellant- corporation to have examined the passengers to establish the guilt of the respondent. He also submitted that the finding of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct is wholly misconceived. Learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in support of this contention of his in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. B.S. Hullikatti { (2001) 2 SCC 574}. That was also a case where a conductor concerned had committed similar misconduct 36 times prior to the time he was found guilty and bearing that fact in mind this Court held thus:-