2006 Supreme(SC) 734

2006(6) Supreme 475
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
C.K. Thakker and Markandey Katju, JJ.
U.P.S.R.T.C. — Appellant
versus
Mitthu Singh — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3536 of 2006
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1497 of 2005)
Decided on 18-8-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T. Mahipal and Pradeep Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Manoj K. Mishra, Sanjay Visen, Amit Yadav and Anish Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Payment of back wages is a discretionary power and while dealing with prayer and back wages, factual scenario and principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by Court/Tribunal.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW — Dismissal from service — Respondent working as Driver with appellant found guilty of misconduct in not stopping bus on three occasions on signal of checking squad — Enquiry Officer found charges proved — Authority passed order terminating the services — Labour Court set aside the order and directed reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages — High Court upheld award — Appeal — Limited notice issued by Court regarding payment of back wages — Such matters required to be disposed of on doctrine of “preponderance of probability” and not proof “beyond reasonable doubt” — Workman was not in a position, to show why checking squad had falsely implicated him and Labour Court believed it — Court committed serious illegality as well jurisdictional error in interfering with finding of guilt recorded by Enquiry Officer and order passed by disciplinary authority — Award deserved to be set aside — Since notice was with regard to payment of back wages, question of termination needed not to be gone into — Payment of back wages was a discretionary to be exercised keeping in view facts in entirety — Record showed that services of respondent workman were not satisfactory and once before his services were terminated but he was taken back by giving a chance to improve — It was not a fit case to grant back wages — Impugned judgment to that extent was liable to be set aside.

       Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the limited notice issued by this Court regarding payment of back wages, we are clearly of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation is well founded that such matters required to be disposed of on the doctrine of ‘preponderance of probability’ and not proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Considering the facts in their entirety, it is clear that not once, not twice but at three occasions, the checking squad asked the workman to stop the bus so as to enable them to undertake checking, the workman had not stopped the bus. A report was, therefore, submitted and charge-sheet was issued to the Driver. After considering the evidence of Vanshraj Singh, Traffic Superintendent and the attenuating circumstances and the report as also the explanation put forward by the driver-workman, a finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the allegations against the workman were found proved. When the respondent-workman was not in a position to show why checking squad had falsely implicated him without there being any enmity and it was believed by the Labour Court, in our view, the Labour Court had committed serious illegality as well as jurisdictional error in interfering with the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The Labour Court was also clearly wrong in observing that it was possible that signal might have been given by the checking squad but it might not have been noticed by the driver. According to the workman, the case was got up, concocted and falsely filed against him. Similar was the observation by the Labour Court regarding absence of initiation of proceedings against the Conductor. It was a totally irrelevant and non-existent consideration. According to the Labour Court, if checking squad was of the view that passengers were taken by the Conductor without issuing tickets, enquiry ought to have been initiated against the Conductor also, but it was not done. The Labour Court had failed to appreciate the most material and vital fact that unless the bus was stopped by the respondent-workman and checking squad had undertaken checking, no action could have been taken against Conductor as it was only on the basis of checking that the checking squad could be able to know whether passengers were traveling without tickets. When the bus was not stopped and could not be checked, there was no occasion for the authorities to initiate proceedings against the Conductor and no such proceedings in law could have been initiated. Another factor considered by the Labour Court was that if the respondent-workman did not stop the bus in spite of signal being given by the checking squad, the checking squad could have chased the bus. In our view, the question was not whether checking squad could have chased the bus. The allegation against the workman was that in spite of signal given by the checking squad to stop the bus, he failed to do so. In our opinion, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The award passed by the Labour Court, hence, deserved to be quashed and set aside. The High Court committed an error in confirming the award of the Labour Court.(Para 11)

       Since limited notice was issued with regard to payment of back wages, we do not enter into the larger question whether the action of terminating the services of the respondent was legal, proper and in consonance with law. But we are fully satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, back wages should not have been awarded to the respondent-workman. In several cases, this Court has held that payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by a court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety and neither straight jacket formula can be evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in such cases.(Para 12)

       Thus, entitlement of a workman to get reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of back wages which would be independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario and the principles of justice, equality and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate Court/Tribunal.(Para 15)

       In the instant case, the record clearly reflects that the services of the respondent-workman were never found to be satisfactory. In fact, before more than 30 years, his services were terminated but he was taken back by giving a chance to improve. Unfortunately, however, the respondent did not utilise it. Even prior to the three incidents in question, at several times, the respondent-workman was warned. It was, therefore, not a fit case to grant back wages and the Labour Court and the High Court were not right in granting the said prayer. To that extent, therefore, the order deserves interference.(Para 16)

       For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court is set aside to the extent of granting back wages and it is held that the respondent-workman is not entitled to back wages. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.(Para 17)