Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for petitioner.

2. In this petition, petitioner - Shri Naranbhai B. Parmar, has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference No.843 of 2008 (Old No.18/2007), Exh.24, dated 13.10.2010, whereby, Labour Court has dismissed Reference filed by petitioner.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that departmental inquiry admitted by petitioner - workman but, petitioner has challenged legality and validity of finding which has not been properly examined by Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11A of I.D.Act,1947. He also submitted that punishment of dismissal in case when conductor has received amount of fare and not issued tickets, is considered to be a harsh punishment and therefore, it is required to be modified by this Court. He also submitted that at the time when bus was checked by checking staff, in all 29 passengers were travelling and bus was local and it was a night time and way bill of conductor was open. Therefore, conductor was on process of issuing tickets, meanwhile bus was checked. Therefore, there was no bad intention of workman. He also submitted that reasoning given by Labour Court that if bus was not checked by checking staff, then conductor may misappropriate aforesaid amount of fare received from passengers. Therefore, reasoning which has been given is based on presumption and for that, Labour Court has committed gross error in rejecting reference filed by workman. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar.

5. Before Labour Court, petitioner - workman has not challenged legality and validity of departmental inquiry but, has challenged only finding given by Inquiry Officer. The respondent - Corporation has filed reply Exh.9 denying averments made by petitioner in statement of claim. The respondent - Corporation has produced certain documents on record vide list Exh.10, Exh.10/1 to 10/9 which has been given pakka Exh.12 to Exh.20. The Corporation has produced entire record of departmental inquiry including default card. The pursis was filed by workman Exh.11 not challenging legality and validity of departmental inquiry. Thereafter, workman was examined vide Exh.21 and on behalf of Corporation, no oral evidence has been led because papers of departmental inquiry are exhibited before Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered allegations made against workman when bus was checked on 25.9.1998. At the time of checking, three different group of passengers comes to 26, who were traveling from Vav to Mahor Patiya and from them, fare was collected by conductor which amount comes to Rs.78/-. Even at the point of time of checking tickets were not given or issued by conductor to concerned passengers. Therefore, statements of passengers were recorded on the spot by checking staff. But that statement was not signed by conductor and refused it. The petitioner conductor has misbehaved with checking staff when the bus was checked by checking staff. The Labour Court after appreciating entire evidence which has been produced by Corporation and exhibited before Labour Court, come to conclusion that finding recorded by Inquiry Officer cannot consider to be a baseless and perverse. The spot statement of petitioner which was recorded on 25.9.1998 when bus was checked by checking staff Exh.12/6 wherein signature of driver was also obtained and statement of passengers Exh.12/1 to 12/5 recorded by checking staff, that has been proved by reporter while giving evidence in departmental inquiry. In spot statement given by passenger where specific allegations were made against conductor that amount of fare was paid to conductor at the time when they boarded in the bus, even though upto checking point after recovering fare, conductor has not issued tickets to passengers.

9. In light of various decisions of Apex Court based on same misconduct, corruption, dishonesty and misappropriation found to be proved against workman, in such circumstances no interference is required to be made by Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of I.D.Act,1947. For that according to my opinion, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar cannot be accepted. In departmental inquiry because of evidence given by reporter and number of statements given by passengers as well as spot statement given by conductor - present petitioner wherein signature of driver was there and in that statement, conductor has admitted misconduct of collecting fare and not issuing tickets to passengers upto checking point. This being a sufficient evidence led in departmental inquiry and finding is based on such documents, cannot consider to be baseless and perverse. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Majmudar that finding given by Inquiry Officer is baseless and perverse, cannot be accepted. According to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly examined issue while adjudicating reference. For that, Labour Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.