The importance of proving misconduct and loss of confidence in the employee, and the immateriality of the quantum of loss in cases of dishonesty.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan high Court, Jaipur Bench dated 10th of august, 2001 whereby the said bench allowed the special appeal filed before it setting aside the judgment of the learned single judge of the said High Court which had confirmed the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows;-

2. 1 The respondent herein was appointed as a conductor on daily wages in the appellant-Corporation on 20th of June, 1986. His services were terminated on 1 st of December, 1986 on the ground that the same was not required by the appellant-Corporation.

2. 2 Challenging the said termination, the respondent moved an application under section 33 (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal, jaipur alleging that his termination was contrary to Section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act, as he has already completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a year in the appellant-Corporation, therefore, without following the provisions of Section 25 F of the I. D. Act his services could not have been terminated. He also alleged in the said application that his termination was a colourable exercise of power because during his service in the corporation an inspection was carried out by the checking staff on 20th of November, 1986 when he was on duty in Bus No. 7108. During the course of investigation, a false case of non-issuance of ticket to six passengers was made against him and since the management was not in a position to prove the said charge it took recourse to his discharge from service without holding a proper enquiry which amounts to a colourable exercise of power.

2. 3 The appellant-Corporation opposed the said application stating that his appointment was purely temporary on daily wages basis and since his services were not required, the same was terminated which was permissible as per the terms of the letter of appointment. It is also stated that the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any year in the Corporation and therefore there was no need to comply with Section 25 F of I. D. Act. However, it was admitted that when the respondent was working as a conductor and there was an inspection on 29. 11. 1986 wherein it was found that he had not issued tickets to six passengers but that was not the ground on which the termination was based.

2. 4 In view of the allegation of the respondent-workman that his termination was for the above said alleged misconduct, the appellant-Corporation sought permission from the Industrial Tribunal to lead evidence to justify the charge of misconduct which permission was granted and parties were permitted to adduce evidence before the tribunal. Based on the evidence that came on record the tribunal came to the conclusion that the Corporation has proved the misconduct as well as the unruly behaviour of the conductor during the inspection, therefore, it came to the conclusion that even on the ground of misconduct termination of the respondent was justified, hence, rejected the application of the respondent.

2. 5 Being aggrieved with the said award of dismissal of his complaint, the respondent filed a writ petition before a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench. The learned single judge who heard the petition came to the conclusion that the finding of fact recorded against the petitioner regarding his misconduct does not suffer from any perversity so as to give a cause of action for the High Court to interfere in it, hence, it dismissed the writ petition.

2. 6 Against the said judgment of the learned single judge, the respondent preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. When the matter came up for consideration by the Division Bench, the court on 18. 7. 2001 made the following order: "the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant makes a statement that the writ pe