Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation contends that the 1st Respondent/Claimant with a view to prolong the enquiry has willfully absented himself though number of opportunities have been provided to him but not attended even after acknowledging the enquiry notice and this has not been taken into account by the 2nd Respondent/Labour Court and even in the Domestic Enquiry findings, a lady passenger has clearly reported to the Deputy Manager at the time of incident while Checking Inspector collecting the tickets, the tickets have been thrown out by the 1st Respondent/Claimant and at the time of enquiry made by the Checking Inspector, the 1st Respondent/Claimant raised his voice at high pitch.

13.Also, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Claimant that except the evidence of M.W.1, no material has been placed before the Labour Court to substantiate the charge that the Writ Petitioner/Claimant created scene in the public place, but inspite of the same, the Labour Court has incorrectly held that charge No.4 has been proved and therefore, prays for allowing the Writ Petition No.49749 of 2006.

14.The 1st Respondent/Claimant's (Petitioner in WP.49749/2006) has projected in 2-A(2) Petition under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.633 of 1996 before the 2nd Respondent/Labour is that he has been appointed as a Conductor in the Writ Petitioner/Transport Corporation by virtue of order dated 29.08.1980. His last drawn wage has been Rs.1,926.30 paise. On 29.04.1989, he has been on duty in bus route No.18V/L, on its way from Vandalur to Broadway and the Checking Inspectors Sambasivam, Peer Mohideen, Govindasamy and Dhanapal have made an inspection of the bus. The Checking Inspector Sambasivam required the passengers who have been getting down from the bus to show him the ticket and the two passengers have informed him, they missed the ticket. The passengers at that time have been forced to give in writing that the conductor has not issued ticket after receiving the ticket fare but they refused. The Checking Inspector Sambasivam snatched the ticket from the 1st Respondent/ Claimant and has torn them and further snatched the money from his bag and when he tried to prevent them, the Checking Inspector Sambasivam, Govindasamy and Dhanapal all joint together and assaulted him and therefore, he has become unconscious. He has taken treatment in the Government Hospital and has lodged a complaint to the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation and Police Station. Subsequently, the Writ Petitioner/ Transport Corporation issued a charge memo dated 15.05.1989 to him and he has been suspended by means of an order dated 08.05.1989. He submitted his explanation on 23.06.1989. The Petitioner/Transport Corporation received the explanation and withdrew the suspension order and transferred him to Vadapalani Depot. On the basis of complaint given to the Police Station by the 1st Respondent/Claimant and the Checking Inspectors, a case has been filed against them and that the Petitioner has been acquitted on26.06.1991. Since the explanation submitted by the 1st Respondent/ Claimant has not been found to be a satisfactory one, a domestic enquiry has been conducted not in a fair and proper manner. The 1st Respondent/Claimant has been issued with a show cause notice on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer. He has submitted his explanation to the second show cause notice. However, without considering his explanation, the Petitioner/Transport Corporation dismissed the 1st Respondent/Claimant on 04.12.1991. The non-employment of the 1st Respondent/Claimant is an illegal, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice. Since no conciliation has arrived at in regard to the dispute raised by him pertaining to the non-employment before the Conciliation Officer, the 1st Respondent/ Claimant has been constrained to file the Writ Petition No.49749 of 2006 before this Court.

15.The stand of the Writ Petitioner/Transport Corporation (Management) is to the effect that the 1st Respondent/Claimant has been employed as a Conductor and on 29.04.1989 while he has been on duty in Bus No.18V 'L' service in Fleet No. of 906, on its way from Vandalur to Broadway has been intercepted at Wellington Bus Stop, Mount Road by the Checking Inspectors Sambasivam, Peer Mohideen, Govindasamy and Dhanapal and by entering the bus on inspection it has been found out the 4 passengers as one group are not possessing the tickets with them and on questioning, they have mentioned that although 4 tickets at the rate of Rs.1.30 each have been purchased by them, the same have been taken back by the Conductor and the Checking Inspectors asked the 1st Respondent/Claimant to furnish the traffic return and the ticket bundles and that the 1st Respondent/ Claimant has given the traffic return first and on verification it has been noticed that no proper entries have been made at all and the 1st Respondent/Claimant instead of handing over the ticket bundles have thrown the same under the last seat i.e. 6 numbers seat (meant for ladies) of the bus and he snatched away the traffic return from the hands of Sambasivam, Checking Inspector and has torn the same and has thrown out of the window. Because of the attitude of the 1st Respondent/Claimant, the bus, moving slowly, has been made to stop and one of the Checking Inspectors got down from the bus and picked the traffic return. The ticket bundles, collected from the last seat on inspection, revealed that there have been loose tickets of the denominations i.e. 4 x Rs.1.30; 3 x 1.35; 6 x 1.35 and 11 x 1.75, which have already been punched and have been kept in the respective denominations with an intention to resell the same.

19.W.W.1 (1st Respondent/Claimant) before the Labour Court, in his evidence, has deposed that when the Bus 18 V bearing Registration No. of 906 Route No.18 V has been proceeding from Vandalur to Broadway at the Wellington Bus stand, the Checking Inspectors conducted ticket checking in the bus on 29.04.1989 at about 12.30 p.m., in which he has been the conductor in the bus and at the time of checking two passengers have informed that they have purchased tickets from Pallavaram to Wellington Bus stand and the tickets have been missed and this can be enquired into with the Conductor and that the Checking Inspector Sambasivam informed the passengers that inspite of money being paid by them tickets have not been issued and to that effect a statement be given for which they replied that such a statement they will not furnish and that immediately the Checking Inspector Sambasivam has got the ticket bundles from him and torn the same haphazardly and punched the same and subsequently has beat him and he and Sambasivam have given a Police complaint, based on which two cases have been filed and finally in two cases both of them have been acquitted and that the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation has conducted a Domestic Enquiry against him levelling charges and in the enquiry, he has not been given enough opportunity.