Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page 0786

1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed in ID No. 354 of 1997, dated 05.09.2000, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

The petitioner is the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). The second respondent was employed as a conductor in the Corporation. While so, he was punished on several occasions for serious irregularities, including the punishment of removal from service. Later, the second respondent had been reinstated in service, under a settlement concluded in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Inspite of the punishments imposed on him, the respondent continued to commit various Irregularities. On one such occasion, the second respondent had collected a sum of Rs. 2.70 per ticket from a group of 13 persons while he was working as a conductor, on 02.02.1994, while plying on the route Mahabalipuram to Chennai. When the Checking Inspectors checked the bus, at about 6.45 P.M. on 02.02.1994, they had found that the second respondent had collected a sum of Rs. 50/- from a group of 13 persons for a fare of Rs. 2.70/- per head but had not issued the tickets. Therefore, the charges were framed against the second respondent based on the report of the Checking Inspector for alleged misappropriation. Since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered. After sufficient opportunity was given to the delinquent employee to defend his case, the Enquiry Officer completed the proceedings, following the principles of natural justice. Based on the evidence and the documents available, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Therefore, the Management of the petitioner corporation had issued a second show cause notice, proposing to Page 0787 remove the petitioner from service. After the receipt of the said notice, the second respondent had submitted his explanation. Since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner management had removed the second respondent from service by an order, dated 04.04.1996. Therefore, the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 354 of 1997. The Labour Court by its award, dated 05.09.2000, had ordered reinstatement of the second respondent in service with back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the said award of the Labour Court, dated 05.09.2000, the petitioner corporation had filed the present writ petition stating, inter alia, that the delinquent employee was removed from service by the petitioner corporation only after following the due process of law and by conducting an enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had contended that the second respondent had entered the service, under the petitioner corporation, as a conductor, on 08.08.1968, and was working faithfully and efficiently and to the satisfaction of his superiors. Based on certain false and frivolous allegations, the second respondent had been terminated from service, on 04.04.1996. At the time of his termination from service, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,082/- per month. The second respondent was issued a charge memo, dated 05.02.1994, alleging that he had collected a fare of Rs. 2.70/- each from a group of 13 persons traveling from Mutukadu to Thiruvanmayur and that the second respondent had attempted to misappropriate the money belonging to the petitioner corporation. The second respondent had submitted an explanation, dated 23.02.1994, stating that 13 persons had boarded the bus at Kanathur and when they were questioned about their destination the passengers were discussing among themselves without informing the second respondent, the place to which they were traveling. While so, the Checking Inspectors of the petitioner Corporation had boarded Page 0788 the bus and on seeing the checking inspectors the passengers had taken out Rs. 50/- asking the second respondent to give tickets. However, the Checking Inspectors had refused to permit the second respondent to issue the tickets, as requested by the passengers. The issues, which have been framed by the labour court, are as follows:

Both the parties had given their consent to decide the case on the basis of evidence and material available in the file of the domestic inquiry. I heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the file carefully.

In the background of this concession and in the absence of seeking permission for leading evidence in support of its charge by the appellant it cannot be now permitted to question the procedure adopted by the Labour Court based on consent of the parties. Even the, learned Single Judge erred in wrongly recording a finding that the appellant was not given an Page 0791 opportunity to lead evidence. As a matter of fact a perusal of the award clearly shows that both the parties addressed arguments on merits and demerits on the basis of the evidence on record and after considering the same the Labour Court by a reasoned order agreed with the inquiry officer that though in the two cases in regard to which an inquiry was conducted the respondent workman has not issued tickets to 3 and 2 passengers respectively, the material on record and explanation given by the respondent sufficiently proved that he had good reasons for not having issued the tickets when the checking staff came for checking and the respondent workman had no intention of defrauding the Corporation. This is a finding of fact based on the material on record accepted by the inquiry officer, the Labour Court and the Division Bench and we find no reason whatsoever to differ from this finding. We are also of the opinion that since the Labour Court had formed an opinion that the disciplinary authority had not properly considered the evidence on record while coming to a contrary conclusion the Labour Court was justified in going into the question of fact that too as consented by the parties and giving a finding.

8. The Labour Court by its award, dated 05.09.2000, made in I.D. No. 354 of 1997, had come to the conclusion that the management of the petitioner corporation had illegally terminated the second respondent without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the second respondent is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and continuity of service with all attendant benefits. No witnesses were examined during the proceedings before the Labour Court, either by the second respondent or by the petitioner corporation. During the domestic inquiry, one Loganathan, who was enquired as a witness by the management, had stated the facts as alleged by the management. The second respondent in his explanation, while stating the events that had occurred on 02.02.1994, Had submitted that he had asked the passengers, who had boarded the bus, about their destination and had also asked them to buy the tickets. When the passengers were discussing amongst themselves the Checking Inspectors had boarded the bus for checking the tickets of the passengers. Thereafter, the passengers had given the amount of Rs. 50/- and the Checking Inspectors had prevented the second respondent from issuing the tickets to the passengers.