IMPORTANT POINT
Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to appellate tribunal or Courts to substitute their subjective opinion.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW-Respondent, a Conductor in appellant Corporation in a surprise check was found in possession of unaccounted money of Rs. 93-Under Regulations, he was not to carry more than Rs. 5/- as his personal money while on duty-In departmental enquiry he was found guilty-Punishment of dismissal from service-Labour Court found inquiry conducted by management was fair and proper but no presumption could be drawn that it was amount received by non-issuance of Tickets as no passenger was produced -Order of dismissal was held uncalled for and highly disproportionate-Court directed reinstatement with full back wages-Award was upheld by High Court-Appeal-Respondent carrying Rs. 93/- in excess was a fact itself a misconduct-Courts ought not to have insisted on examination of passengers-Once domestic tribunal based on evidence came to a particular conclusion normally it was not open to Court to substitute its subjective opinion-Courts below erred in interfering with finding of fact-Punishment was also not disproportionate-Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless passengers to reject the said finding which, in our opinion, as held by this Court in the case of Rattan Singh (supra) is not a condition precedent. We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh s (supra) has since been followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation {(2002) 9 SCC 644}. (Para 10)
       In the instant case also there is the evidence of the inspector who conducted the checking which establishes the misconduct of the respondent based on which a finding was given that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Based on the said finding, the disciplinary authority has punished the respondent by an order of dismissal. But the Labour Court, and the learned single Judge rejected the said finding and set aside the punishment imposed solely on the ground that the evidence of the passengers concerned was not adduced and their statements were not recorded by the inspector which as stated in the Rattan Singh s case is not a condition precedent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in interfering with the finding of fact on an erroneous basis. (Para 12)
       Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation s fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellant by way of special leave petition is challenging the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka whereby the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant-corporation confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge as well as the award of the Additional Labour Court Hubli whereby the appellant-corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows :-

2. The respondent was working as a conductor in the Chikodi depot of the appellant-corporation. On 31st May 1999 when the bus in which he was on duty returned back to the depot after its trip from Haragiri to Chikodi on a surprise check he was found be in possession of unaccounted money of Rs. 93/- over and above the amount equivalent to the tickets issued by him. Under Regulation applicable to the respondent, the respondent was not to carry more than Rs. 5/- as his personal money while on duty so as to obviate the defence of the delinquent conductors that the excess money was their personal money. Basing on these facts the appellant drew an inference that this excess amount of Rs. 93/- was the amount collected by the respondent from the passengers without issuing any tickets or issuing tickets of lesser denomination than that was issued. On the said investigation report, the departmental enquiry was instituted against the respondent and having found guilty of the said charge, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of dismissal.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred a claim before the Additional Labour Court, Hubli praying for setting aside the order of dismissal and for reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Labour Court after hearing the parties concerned came to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper. However, it came to the conclusion that the only charge against the respondent was being in possession of Rs. 93/- which was in excess of the sale of tickets, no presumption could be drawn that it was on amount received by non-issuance of tickets to passengers. It held that the corporation ought to have examined the passengers from whom such amount was collected without issuing tickets or issuing tickets of lesser denomination. Since, the same was not done, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was uncalled for and as also highly disproportionate compared with the smallness of the amount. Hence, it made the award directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

4. As stated above, aggrieved corporation preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition agreed with the Labour Court that since the corporation failed to examine the passengers from whom the said excess amount was collected, the charge of non-issuance of tickets or issuance of tickets of lesser denomination could not be upheld. The learned single Judge also agreed with the Labour Court that the punishment awarded was also excessive however it thought fit to reduce the back wages to 75% as compared to the full back wages awarded by the Labour Court.

5. On appeal filed against the said judgment before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on two grounds firstly it held that there was a delay of 16 days in preferring the appeal. However, the court observed that it would have certainly condoned the said delay had there been any merit in the appeal. Having said so the Division Bench held that they do not find any merit in the appeal and agreed with the single Judge that the order of reinstatement with reduced back wages was a just order.

6. In this appeal, the Shri R.S. Hegde learned counsel appearing for the appellant co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1175

IMPORTANT POINTOnce a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to appellate tribunal or Courts to substitute their subjective opinion.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to appellate tribunal or Courts to substitute their subjective opinion.