Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The common question involved in these two petitions is whether the State Transport Corporation is required to follow the procedure prescribed for dismissal of its employee under the Discipline & Appeal Procedure with regard to a "Badli worker" before removing his name from the waiting list prepared for the Badli workers on the ground of grave misconduct by the Badli workers.

2. In Special Civil Application No. 89 of 1990 the respondent was given work as a Conductor as Badli worker on 30th March, 1982. It is alleged against him that he has not issued tickets to 4 passengers who boarded the bus from village Matira and were go to Kerala on Amreli - Babra Road. For the said misconduct of misappropriation explanation of the respondent was called for by show cause notice dated 1st October, 1982 why his name be not cancelled from the waiting list of Badli workers. After considering his reply, his name was cancelled from the waiting list with permanent effect by an order dated 15th October, 1982 passed by the competent authority of the State Transport Corporation. Against that order, the respondent approached the Labour Court vide Reference (LCR) No. 265 of 1983. The Labour Court, Rajkot, by its award dated 18th July, 1989 directed the State Transport Corporation to reinstate the name of the respondent in the waiting list at its original place without any back wages on the ground that the Corporation has not held a full-fledged departmental inquiry against the respondent for his alleged misconduct. That order is challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 89 of 1990.

4. In both these matters, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that before removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list for the misconduct, full-fledged inquiry as contemplated by the Discipline and Appeal Procedure is required to be followed.

5. Mr. Shelat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently submitted that Badli worker has no right to continue in service and that rules do not provide for holding full-fledged inquiry for removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list, and, therefore, the Labour Court committed gross error in holding that before removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list of the Badli workers, the petitioner was required to follow the procedure applicable to the regular employee of the Corporation is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. For this purpose he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Raslitriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh and in the case of S. Govindaraju v. K.S.R.T.C.

9. In our view, the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted when a Badli worker's name is to be removed from the waiting list on the ground of his alleged grave misconduct. It is true that 'Badli workers' are not employees of Corporation in view of Regulational 16. Therefore, the Discipline and Appeal Procedure is not required to be followed in case of 'Badli workers'. However, it should be noted that because of the adverse verdict of grave misconduct against the Badli worker:

(i) it would stigmatize him for his life-time;
(ii) it would also affect his reputation;
(iii) his chances of getting service in S.T. Corporation or in Government Department would be bleak, and
(iv) his livelihood may in certain cases would be at stake.

In this type of cases it would be unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice to hold that as the person is a Badli worker and his name is only removed from the waiting list prepared by the Corporation, there is no necessity of holding a full-fledged inquiry. This would be in violation of principles of natural justice as the person would be condemned unheard which would affect him for the life-time. It is true that at the relevant time there was no administrative instruction issued by the S. T. Corporation for holding departmental inquiry against the Badli worker for his alleged misconduct, therefore the Corporation was not required to follow the procedure prescribed for employees of the S.T. Corporation for holding departmental inquiry. At the same time the Corporation has realised this defect and hence on 20th October, 1987 it has issued a Circular that even with regard to Badli workers, for their alleged misconduct the procedure prescribed for holding departmental inquiry for employees is required to be followed. In any case, as stated above if the procedure prescribed under the Rules was not applicable at the relevant time, yet the Corporation was required to follow the Rules of natural justice before arriving at the conclusion that 'Badli worker' has committed grave misconduct.