Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14408/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined 2.6 In view of the above facts, the petitioner corporation has preferred present petition with abovementioned prayer/s.

3. Heard Mr. Prithu Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent workman.

4. Mr. Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was working as conductor with petitioner and during checking in the bus, it was found that after collecting the fair, the respondent had not issued ticket to one passenger.

4.1 Mr. Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry was conducted and after inquiry, the respondent was found guilty and therefore, he was terminated from service. He has submitted that the respondent is found guilty for the alleged case of misappropriation and the said charge came to be proved and after considering the past history and after considering the records produced before the inquiry NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14408/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined officer, the inquiry officer has rightly passed the order of dismissal, which was confirmed by the first and second appellate authority. He has further submitted that the said order of dismissal was not further carried before the Higher Forum by the respondent. He has further submitted that the Presiding Officer, has observed that the respondent has waived his right to challenge the legality and validity of the said inquiry under Section 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act and has not challenged the order of punishment. It is further submitted that during the course of checking, the respondent has instigated the passenger of the bus and therefore, this act of instigation is also viewed seriously, and after considering all these aspect the order of inquiry was interfered by the Presiding Officer, which is not permissible. 4.2 Mr. Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as many as 28 defaults, as per the chart annexed at page 43 were registered against present respondent and punishment was also imposed for all these alleged defaults. He has submitted that the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14408/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined corporation has lost the confidence in the respondent and after considering the past history, has rightly passed the impugned order of punishment which ought not to have been interfered by Presiding Officer unless and until the inquiry is challenged by the concern workmen by way of filing reference under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act and in present case, the respondent workman has specifically waived his right to challenge to the legality and validity of the inquiry and therefore, punishment imposed on the respondent, based upon the inquiry cannot be altered or cannot be interfered by Presiding Officer and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer is erroneous, illegal, unjust and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 It is also further contended by Mr. Parimal learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court materially erred in allowing the reference, whereby the Presiding Officer has committed serious error of jurisdiction which is not vested in it, as held by the Honourable Apex Court in number of judgments. He has NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14408/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined also contended that the Presiding Officer has committed material error while ignoring the aspect that once the challenge to the legality and validity of the inquiry was waived, it is not open for the learned Presiding Officer to enter into the quantum of the punishment and therefore, also the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, erroneous and unjust.

4.4 Mr. Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Presiding Officer has held that the misconduct was not proved instead of the fact that there was sufficient evidence to prove the misconduct of the respondent and respondent-workmen has failed before the first and second appellate authority and also has not challenged the findings by preferring petition before this Court. He has submitted that in view of the said fact, it is not open for the Labour Court to look into the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the first and second Appellate Authority.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14408/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2024 undefined 4.5 Mr. Parimal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 115 and more particularly paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 which read as under:-