Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION
3. Respondent/Workman was working as a conductor with the Petitioner/ Management. On 05.08.1992, while the Respondent/Workman was NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:2627 performing his duty as a conductor in bus no. 6097, Route No. Faridabad Sector 7 to Delhi, the checking staff of the Petitioner/Management intercepted the said bus. During the said inspection, a passenger was found to be travelling without ticket. The checking staff found that the Respondent/Workman failed to issue ticket to the said passenger even after collecting the ticket fare of Rs.2/- from him. The checking staff recorded the statement of the passenger behind the challan and seized the unpunched tickets from the Respondent/Workman.
26.Moreover, the testimony of the ticketless passenger, Sh. Vijay Pal is sufficient to exonerate the Respondent/Workman from all the false charges leveled against him. The passenger has testified that the Respondent/Workman was about to issue the ticket to him when the checking staff intercepted the bus and snatched away the ticket. Another checking staff forcefully obtained the thumb impression of the NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:2627 passenger. It is further submitted that since cash was not checked by the checking staff, the allegation of causing financial loss to the Petitioner/Management remains unproved. In such a case, the charges levelled against the Respondent/Workman are not established and the punishment of termination is unfounded and without any basis.
32.In view of the above-mentioned settled position of law, this Court now proceed to examine the facts of the present case. In the present case, the learned Labour Court after hearing both the sides adjudicated the dispute in favour of the Respondent/Workman. The relevant extract of the judgment has been reproduced herein below:
"11. I have perused statement of the passenger taken by the checking squad. There are 10 lines in the purported statement of the passenger. His thumb impression has been obtained at the lower end of the paper. Sufficient blank space has been left out NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:2627 between purported statement of the passenger and his thumb impression. Similarly signatures of the workman have been obtained just near thumb impression of the passenger Vijay Pal. Prima facie it appears that signatures of the workman as well as thumb impression of the passenger were obtained on blank papers and subsequently it was converted into statement of the passenger. Otherwise, there would not have been abnormal blank space between thumb impression of the passenger and the point his purported statement ended. In my opinion, statement of the checking members can, not be relied upon inasmuch as record prepared by the checking staff is full of suspicion. Circumstances brought on record clearly makes strong suspicion about veracity of the case of the Management that workman had not issued ticket to the passenger. On the other hand, passenger has not supported story of the Management, He is specific that workman was new and he was verifying the fare from list of fare before issuing ticket. He has also stated that workman had issued ticket to him in the meantime checking staff snatched ticket from his hand and obtained his signatures on blank papers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that evidence brought on record is not sufficient to warrant conclusion that workman is guilty of any misconduct, in other word. Management has failed to prove misconduct on the part of the workman."
"14. ...The Tribunal appears to have overlooked that in a majority of the cases where the charges are that after collecting cash from the passengers the conductor has not issued them tickets, the checking of the cash with the conductor is absolutely essential to determine if the passengers who were allegedly travelling without tickets were telling the truth..."