Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It may be pointed out that reliying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Vaidyanath v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1974 MPLJ 671, 1975 JLJ 297 took the view that the punishment imposed by the Management when misconduct is proved in a proper domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with except in cases where it is so harsh as to suggest victimisation or unfair labour practice. Similarly in Baldev Singh v. P. O., Labour Court, AIR 1987 SC 104 it was observed that when it is found by the Tribunal that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and there was no violation of principles of natural justice, the punishment of termination of service must be upheld. In the present case, in, the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner, the major misconduct of carrying 20 passengers without tickets was found to be fully established and the Labour Court also clearly found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and the same was not vitiated by violation of any principles of natural justice and, therefore, there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the punishment of termination by the Management in a case where there were reasons to show that the Management had totally lost confidence in the petitioner. The respondent Corporation was satisfied from the conduct of petitioner that no confidence can be reposed in him. The facts prima facie indicated that the termination was neither colourable exercise of power by the employer nor an act of victimisation. But haying found an established act of dishonesty which had shaken the confidence of the employer, the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the order of the Labour Court. The reasoning of the Labour Court in reducing the punishment on the ground that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to improve himself is ridiculous and fallacious. To afford a chance of improvement at the cost of the employer after an act of major misconduct of a grave and serious nature was established, would be very unfair and unreasonable from the point of view and interest of the employer. This misconduct in itself was sufficient to dispense with the service of the petitioner and it is not necessary to look to his past records. In the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that there was any lack of jurisdiction or want of jurisdiction in making the impugned order by the Industrial Court. We find no infirmity far less any illegality in the same.

5. Rule 12(1) and (d) of the M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 with which the petitioner is governed, amongst other things, contemplates that dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the undertaking or wilful disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior involving property shall amount to major misconduct. In this connection here a reference to G.M.O. 847 may also be made which requires a conductor to issue tickets to the passengers at the place where they board the bus. But in the present case, as seen above, the petitioner did not issue the tickets to 20 passengers even after the bus had travelled a distance of about 24 kms.

6. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not received fare from the 20 passengers and, therefore, no inference of dishonest intention can be drawn against him but at best it would be a case of negligence amounting to minor misconduct only for which penalty of termination of service would be too harsh and excessive. The question, therefore, arises what is dishonesty, when and under what circumstances an inference of dishonesty may legitimately be drawn. It may be noted that whoever does any thing with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, it amounts to dishonesty. In other words the term "dishonesty" is relatable to an advantage to which a party perpetrating a deceit is not legally entitled to. There can be no dispute that it is difficult to establish dishonesty by any direct evidence. The question whether a person had any dishonest intention or not while doing or omitting to do an act has to be judged and inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention is a internal and invisible act of mind which could be judged or ascertained only from external and visible acts. In our opinion, therefore, the mere fact that the conductor recovered or did not recover the fare from passengers would not by itself be enough and a deciding factor to draw an inference this way or that way but an inference of dishonesty has to be drawn on consideration of totality of all the attending facts and circumstances appearing in a given case. For example, if the bus had travelled only a very short distance from where the passengers boarded and the checkers arrived and the conductor was in process of issuing the tickets and in fact had issued tickets to some of them, then in that event inference of dishonesty may not be drawn and it may be regarded as an act of negligence or carelessness amounting to minor misconduct. But in a case as one in hand where the conductor was found carrying a large number of passengers without tickets, the bus had travelled a long distance and yet the tickets were not issued though the conductor had ample time to do so and the explanation given by the conductor/petitioner was found to be totally baseless and false, the inference of dishonesty would be reasonable and fully justified, as dishonesty may also be inferred from false accounting of fact or an incident, as well, as from absence of bona fides. The observation and experience enable the Court to judge intention from men's conduct and behaviour and there does not arise much difficulty in inferring from his conduct as to what was his real intention upon any given occasion.

7. It may also be pointed here that the expression that if the bus conductor had not recovered the fare from passengers found travelling without tickets, then the inference of dishonesty cannot be drawn, has in fact, instead of having the effect of improving the bus-conductor and discipline as honest employees of the Corporation, has on the contrary, provided them an inducement and a safeguard inasmuch as they have now developed a practice not to recover the fare from passengers who are allowed to travel in the bus without tickets, at the time of their entrance in the bus or mid way but at the place where they step down from the bus at the end of their journey so as to evade and exclude the danger of being checked after recovery of fare and if ultimately checked, at some point then to come forward with the usual defence that since he had not recovered the fare no intention of dishonesty can be attributed to him and thus escape safely or at the most with a punishment for minor misconduct. Thus after engaging our serious thought and on overall consideration of the matter, we find that there is absolutely no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.