Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; and of the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the 2nd respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The genesis of the matter and the facts, which lead the Corporation to file this writ petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows:

The 1st respondent was appointed as a casual Conductor, on 28.03.1991, on daily wage basis. His services were disengaged on 25.04.1996, as he was involved in serious cash and ticketing irregularities. On the Regional Manager allowing his appeal, he was re-engaged, on 10.02.1998. His services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1999. On 07.08.2002, when the 1st respondent was conducting the bus of the Corporation, bearing Registration no.8098 2 MSRM, J plying on route no.3-H, the checking officials/the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the HES/Nirmal exercised a check, at about 12.00 hours, at stage no.7, Vidyanagar, and detected cash and ticketing irregularities. A charge memo was duly served on the 1st respondent. Later, a charge sheet, dated 16.08.2002, was served upon him. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation. As the Depot Manager was not satisfied with the explanation of the 1st respondent, a detailed enquiry was ordered by appointing an Enquiry Officer. As is evident from the impugned Award, the following charges 1 & 2 were framed against the 1st respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-conductor while supporting the Award of the Labour Court contended as follows: 'The Enquiry Officer did not provide an opportunity to the 1st respondent-conductor to put forward his case, which is based on the genuine facts. He conducted the enquiry in an arbitrary manner and violated the principles of natural

5 MSRM, J justice. The Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, is the last Court of fact. It considered, in detail, the spot explanation, the evidentiary value of the statements of the passengers and the vital aspect of non-verification of the bus cash by the checking officials and the mischief, the passengers who do not purchase the tickets would generally resort to at the time of checking of the bus by the checking officials, and rightly held that there is no evidence brought before the Enquiry Officer to hold either that the charges are proved or that the 1st respondent is guilty of the charges. The Labour Court also noted that at the time of checking of the bus, there are (68) passengers and the bus is over loaded beyond the seating capacity and that there was heavy rush in the bus and therefore, it was not possible for the conductor to verify and find out as to whether every passenger purchased and possessed a ticket or not. The Labour Court also took into consideration the widely known facts and the practices, which the employees and officers of the Corporation generally follow at the times of heavy rush of passengers in view of the fact that less number of buses are available to the commuters and that overloading of the buses beyond the seating capacity is a general phenomenon. The well reasoned Award of the Labour Court does not warrant interference. In view of the fact that this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to interfere with the impugned award.

8. The gravamen of the charges is that the 1st respondent having collected Rs.6/- each from two passengers at the boarding point itself had re-issued the tickets, which were already issued at the earlier stages of an earlier trip. It is borne out by the record that when the checking officials checked the bus, two passengers showed the re-issued tickets to the said officials. At the spot, the 1st respondent gave an explanation as follows: 'On 07.08.2002, while he was performing the service, the check took place at Vidyanagar. It was detected that two passengers were traveling with the tickets, which they purchased in the earlier trip. The said passengers, without alighting at ECIL and without purchasing tickets afresh, were traveling in the bus, in the return journey. At that time of check, they have shown the same tickets to the checking officials. Thus, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 115 (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 555 2016 (3) ALD 517 1999 (5) ALD 735 (2010) 1 SCC (LS) 1072 AIR 1973 SC 1227 W.P.No.1300 of 2009, dated 14.06.2017 7 MSRM, J they cheated him. They did not pay any money to him. He did not issue any tickets to them in the current trip.' However, not being satisfied with his explanation, charges were framed and an enquiry was held. According to the Corporation, the two passengers stated in their statements that they have boarded the bus at S.P. Nagar Community Hall to go to Barkatpura and that they gave Rs.6/- each to the Conductor and that the Conductor had issued the tickets, which they have shown to the officials at the time of the check, and that a co-passenger countersigned the statements of the said two passengers and that their statements were also signed by the 1st respondent. In the circumstances, the Officers of the Corporation held that the 1st respondent having collected the fare of Rs.6/- each from the two individual passengers had re-issued the tickets, which were accounted for in the earlier trip, and that there is clear proof of his intention to pocket the amount; but the timely exercise of check arrested the leakage of revenue of the Corporation. However, the further explanation of the 1st respondent is as follows: 'The said two passengers stated to the officials that they travelled in the earlier trip and that they are continuing their journey in the next trip. However, when they were threatened that heavy penalty would be imposed, they had changed their versions with mala fide intentions and gave statements as per the dictation of the checking officials. His signatures on the statements were obtained under coercion. He did not sign the passengers' statements voluntarily. Admittedly, he received the charge memo under protest.' It is also borne out by the record that at the time of check, the bus was overloaded beyond its seating capacity. In the impugned award, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court noted that as there was heavy rush in the bus, it was not possible for the 8 MSRM, J conductor to verify every one of the passengers and find out whether each one of them possessed valid tickets issued by him. The version of the 1st respondent is that because of the compelling circumstances, he could not issue tickets and collect the fare from the two passengers and that, therefore, the Labour Court rightly appreciated the entire gamut of the matter in proper perspective and rightly partly allowed the case and granted appropriate reliefs to the 1st respondent. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, took into consideration the spot explanation, i.e., exhibit M4, of the 1st respondent and held that once the tickets were issued, they remain with the passengers and that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the Conductor had collected back the tickets, which were issued in the earlier trip; and, since there is no evidence to prove that the 1st respondent collected back the tickets, which were issued to the passengers in the previous trip, no inference can be drawn that he had re-issued the confiscated tickets in the current trip. The learned Presiding Officer then noted that the checking officials had not verified the bus cash. He then observed in the impugned award that had the checking officials verified the bus cash on the spot, the result of such verification would have certainly established the guilt of the 1st respondent had excess amount been found in his cash bag. Therefore, having recorded reasons the learned presiding officer of the Labour Court arrived at a finding that the charges are not proved and that the removal of the 1st respondent from service is not justified and accordingly, granted the reliefs to the 1st respondent by partly allowing the case.

9. Now, it is pertinent to note that the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation forcefully contended that there is no requirement of checking the bus cash with the conductor at the time of checking and for 9 MSRM, J not checking the bus cash by the checking officials, an inference favourable to the 1st respondent need not be drawn. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma & batch (4 supra). The facts of the cited decision show that the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had decided the writ petition only on the ground that the passengers found without tickets had not been examined and that the cash with the employee was not checked and that the High Court has not given any other reasons. Further, the facts of the cited case reflect that the bus conductor was found carrying (28) passengers without tickets and that he already recovered fare from eight of such passengers and six tickets issued by him were found to be not in seriatim and that no corresponding entries were made in the way bill and that those and other facts persuaded the Enquiry Officer to hold that the charge of misappropriation has been proved. Thus in the cited case there was adequate other evidence, which sufficiently established the facts in issue and hence, non verification of the bus cash by the checking officials did not matter and make much of a difference. Hence, this decision does not advance the case of the Corporation any further. It is now necessary to deal with other decisions riled upon by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation: (1) The decision in UPSRTC v. Vinod Kumar (3rd supra) was relied upon in support of the contention that in a case where the workmen has challenged only the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer and the quantum of punishment but not the legality and the fairness of the enquiry proceedings, the Labour Court could not examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold that the charge was not proved. In the case on hand, the 1st respondent challenged the legality and the fairness of the enquiry proceedings before the Labour Court is borne out by record.