Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Appellant/ Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has prayed for setting aside of the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge as well the award passed by the Tribunal dated 31.03.2010.

3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Respondent workman joined the services of DTC as a conductor on 20.04.1983 and his services were regularized on 20.10.1983. On 05.08.1992, the checking staff of the DTC inspected a bus bearing number 6097 on route from Faridabad to Delhi and the checking staff, and while conducting routine check found that the Respondent workman failed to issue a ticket to one passenger, namely Mr. Vijay Pal after collecting the requisite charges i.e. Rs.2/-. The checking staff seized the unpunched ticket bearing number 04/42471 and the statement of the passenger was also recorded.

32.In view of the above-mentioned settled position of law, this Court now proceed to examine the facts of the present case. In the present case, the learned Labour Court after hearing both the sides adjudicated the dispute in favour of the Respondent/Workman. The relevant extract of the judgment has been reproduced herein below:

"11. I have perused statement of the passenger taken by the checking squad. There are 10 lines in the purported statement of the passenger. His thumb impression has been obtained at the lower end of the paper. Sufficient blank space has been left out between purported statement of the passenger and his thumb impression. Similarly signatures of the workman have been obtained just near thumb impression of the passenger Vijay Pal. Prima facie it appears that signatures of the workman as well as thumb impression of the passenger were obtained on blank papers and subsequently it was converted into statement of the passenger. Otherwise, there would not have been abnormal blank space between thumb impression of the passenger and the point his purported statement ended. In my opinion, statement of the checking members can, not be relied upon inasmuch as record prepared by the checking staff is full of suspicion. Circumstances brought on record clearly makes strong suspicion about veracity of the case of the Management that workman had not issued ticket to the passenger. On the other hand, passenger has not supported story of the Management, He is specific that workman was new and he was verifying the fare from list of fare before issuing ticket. He has also stated that workman had issued ticket to him in the meantime checking staff snatched ticket from his hand and obtained his signatures on blank papers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that evidence brought on record is not sufficient to warrant conclusion that workman is guilty of any misconduct, in other word. Management has failed to prove misconduct on the part of the workman."

35.At the time of enquiry, the passenger categorically deposed that the checking staff used aggression while inspecting the bus and the thumb impression was also obtained forcefully. With such statement, the passenger demolished the averments of the Petitioner/Management, which shows that the story was concocted by the checking staff to falsely charge the Respondent/Workman with misconduct. Hence, to this Court‟s understanding, the records produced by the Petitioner/Management cannot be made basis for holding the Respondent/Workman guilty of misconduct. Furthermore, while perusing the Labour Court Record (LCR), this Court came across a letter dated 07.08.1992, written by the Respondent/Workman addressing the Petitioner/Management. In aforesaid letter, the Respondent/Workman expressed his grievance to the Petitioner/Management with respect to the frivolous chargesheet filed against him by the checking staff. It is also written that the checking staff misbehaved with him while he was issuing ticket to the passenger and involuntarily obtained thumb impression of passenger. Hence, in the present case, where the passenger who happens to be the star witness of the Petitioner/Management has deposed against the Petitioner/Management, the Petitioner/Management is left with no evidence apart from that of checking staff to prove misconduct on part of the Respondent/Workman.

"14. ...The Tribunal appears to have overlooked that in a majority of the cases where the charges are that after collecting cash from the passengers the conductor has not issued them tickets, the checking of the cash with the conductor is absolutely essential to determine if the passengers who were allegedly travelling without tickets were telling the truth..."