Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. has challenged the order dated 9.7.1991 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court in revision U.L.P.A. No. 62 of 1986 whereby the revision is allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service and back wages was set aside,

2. Relevant facts are as under :

The respondent was employee as a conductor with the petitioner-Corporation. On 15.3.1982 he was on duty on the route of Golai to Akot. The S.T. Bus No. 9865 was scheduled on that route. The checking staff had surprisingly checked the tickets of the passengers of the said S.T. Bus at Khatkali spot and found that the respondent had recovered Rs. 3.50 from four passengers each when they boarded the bus at Golai. Those four passengers were travelling from Golai to Khatkali and on checking the tickets which they were having, it was found that the respondent had issued tickets of denomination of Rs. 1.20 though fare @ Rs. 3.50 was recovered from each passenger. The checking staff found that two passengers were travelling from Dhargad to Akot with three gunny bags of food grains and the respondent had recovered Rs. 40/- from these two passengers towards the fare and inspite of recovery of the same, the respondent had issued them two tickets for the denomination of Rs. 0.90. The respondent did not issue luggage tickets to those passengers though he had recovered the fare. The cash with the respondent was also checked and it was found that the amount of Rs. 11.50 was in excess and the waybill was not filled up. The checking staff then made a report to the higher authorities on 12.4.1982. After making preliminary enquiry, charge-sheet was served to the respondent on 20.4.1982 and thereafter regular departmental enquiry was held in accordance with the rules. The contention of the respondent was also considered who had taken the defence that he had issued four tickets of denomination of Rs. 1.20 to those four passengers who were travelling in the bus from Dhargad to Khatkali and two passengers were travelling from Dhargad to Akot and they were having luggage of one bag of wheat and two bags of gram from whom the amount of Rs. 9.80 was collected on account of ticket and when he was about to issue the tickets for luggage, the checking staff entered the bus. The respondent also contended that those two passengers did not pay for the luggage en route and they had paid that amount of luggage when the bus was about to reach Khatkali fata.

6. Mr. Khan, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that four passengers had boarded into the bus to whom four tickets of denomination of Rs. 1.50 were issued. He contended that those four passengers were travelling from Dhargad to Khatkali. He further contended that other two passengers who were carrying luggage with them, did not initially pay the luggage charges and when they had paid it, the bus was about to reach Khatkali, luggage tickets were being issued, but at the same time the bus was checked, and therefore, the luggage tickets could not be issued. He contended that Industrial Court was perfectly justified in appreciating and reassessing the evidence especially when the appreciation of evidence by the Labour Court was found to be perverse. He contended that the Industrial Court was perfectly within its jurisdiction by exercising powers under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. In support of these submissions, he relied on the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hotel Oberoi Towers v. Gopol Naidu 2002 (94) F.L.R. 779 the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Textiles v. Sarva Shramik Sangh 1991 (II) L.L.J. 451 : 1990 (I) C.L.R. 872 : 1990 F.L.R. (60) 630 and also on the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sadanand Rule Samsi v. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. and Ors. 2003 (I) C.L.R. 50 : 105 (2) Bom. L.R. 171 and in the case of C.M. Deshmukh v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay 1995 Lab. I.C. 1496.

10. The respondent-conductor admitted in his spontaneous statement made on 15.3.1982 at. the spot that four passengers boarded into the bus to whom tickets were issued and two passengers who were travelling to Dhargad to Akot were having luggage of one bag wheat and two bags of gram and the respondent has collected Rs. 9.80 from them and that he was about to issue tickets for luggage, the bus was checked. This defence of the respondent cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent-conductor was found to have collected the amount of freight charges not according to the prescribed rates. If the respondent would have collected the fair charges, then the amount of Rs. 11.50 would not have been found excess in the cash amount which was with the respondent-conductor. These circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, and therefore, rightly recorded the findings that the charge of misconduct has been duly proved.