Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

However, the appropriate Government refused to make any reference. He filed a Civil Writ Petition and this Court in the year 1985 reinstated him with full back wages and continuation of service with all benefits. Thereafter, it is the case of the management that on 10th March, 1994, the workman while on duty at route No.115 (Wazirpur JJ Colony to Railway Station) in bus No. 6317, was checked by the checking officials Sh. Om Prakash, ATI and Sh.Prem Shankar, ATI at around 17:45 hours at ISBT in the down direction when they noticed that the conductor was collecting the tickets from the passengers already sold by him in the up direction and then re-selling the said tickets to passengers in the down direction. Ticket bearing No.683/23522 was found from a passenger to whom the workman allegedly resold the ticket. The workman admitted his guilt and issued ticket of Rs.2/- bearing No.23530. Apart from this, a ticket bearing No.683/23525 duly punched was found from the hand block. The cash when checked was also found short by Rs.1/-. Consequently, the workman was challaned by Sh. Om Prakash, ATI vide Challan No.179316 which was countersigned by Sh. Prem Shankar ATI and a report pertaining to the misconduct on the part of the workman was sent to the authority. Vide office memo dated 18th March, 1994, the workman was placed under suspension w.e.f. 18th March, 1994. It is alleged that since the act of reselling already sold tickets on the part of the respondent amounted to misconduct within the meaning of para 19(B) (H) and (M) of S.O. governing the conduct of DTC Employees, the workman was served with the charge sheet on 25th March, 1994. A reply was submitted by the workman which was found to be not satisfactory. As such, a departmental enquiry was conducted into the matter. Pursuant to the findings received from the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 7th September, 1994 was issued to the workman proposing penalty of removal from service. Thereafter, he was removed from the services of the Corporation w.e.f. 28th October, 1994 under Clause 15(2)(vi) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Services) Regulation, 1952. The workman filed a claim petition before the Conciliation Officer. The Secretary (Labour) GNCT, Delhi thereafter on 16th February, 1996 referred the said dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court VII with the following terms of reference:-

W.P.(C) 3425/2014

11. This petition has been filed by the Management challenging the impugned award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the Management duly proved the respondent's misconduct by examining Omparkash, ATI and Prem Shankar, ATI who proved the surrender of unpunched tickets, challan, passengers statement, chargesheet and other incriminating material against the workman. Despite observing that nothing came out in the cross-examination of MW2 and MW3 to disprove the fact that the checking was done by MW2 alongwith MW3 or the tickets were seized during checking from the workman which were of down direction but punched as updirection and the workman also admitted the factum of checking by MW1 and recovery of tickets erroneously decided in favour of the workman. Non-examination of passenger is not fatal to the case of Management if the checking staff duly proves the guilt of the workman as held in DTC vs. N. L. Kakkar and Anr.2004 LLR 449, State of Haryana and Anr. vs Ratan Singh 1977 (34) FLR 264. Misappropriation of government money by conductor is such an offence which does not warrant his continuation in service. No misplaced sympathy should be shown in such cases of cheating by conductors as held in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. A. T. Mane (2005) 3 SCC 254.

12. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that the learned Labour Court on appreciation of testimony of MW2 and MW3 as well as the workman WW1 observed that it was undisputed case of the parties that the workman was conductor in DTC bus and was on bus no. 6317 going from Railway Station to Wazirpur and the said bus was checked by MW2 and MW3 when bus was going in down direction at ISBT. During checking, tickets bearing Nos. 23522, 23525 and 23530 were recovered from the workman which were of down direction. After scrutinizing the testimony of the witnesses, it was observed that though MW2 testified that the ticket Ex.MW2/4 bearing no. 23522 was punched at down side direction and first issued in upward direction and then sold to some passenger but it was taken back from the said passenger and then used for down direction but the witness admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen the workman selling tickets to the passenger of updirection. Therefore, even presuming that MW2 had seized the said tickets from downward passenger nothing came out against the workman to presume that earlier he had sold the same to passenger of upward direction. So far as ticket no. 23530 is concerned, it was alleged that the said ticket has been given by the workman to the passenger in lieu of ticket no. 23522 when this ticket was collected by checking staff. Although it was alleged that the said ticket was handed over by the workman while accepting his guilt but the workman had stated in his cross-examination that the said ticket was handed over under protest. There was no challenge to this part of the testimony of the workman and even no suggestion was given to the workman in cross-examination that he had accepted his guilt while handing over the said tickets. So far as ticket no. 23525 Ex.MW2/6 is concerned, MW2 Omparkash testified that the same is punched in upward direction and was found in the hand block of the conductor and the conductor had cancelled the updirection punch. Nothing could be made out against the workman by the recovery of the aforesaid ticket as it was not issued to the customer for gaining any pecuniary advantage. Moreover, during the checking Rs.1 was found short in cash. If the workman had sold the tickets to the passenger of updirection and then took it back and re-sold the same to the passenger of down direction then he must have excess money instead of short money. No explanation in this regard was given by the Management. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that Management has failed to prove that the workman has committed misconduct by selling the same tickets to both upward direction passenger as well as downward direction passenger.