IMPORTANT POINT
Court would not be justified in altering the quantum of punishment when enquiry into charges of misconduct was held to be fair and proper charge was proved and punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW - Removal from service - Respondent in employment of appellant as badli conductor was found by checking squad to have failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers despite collection of money and had failed to issue ticket to 4 passengers and had not collected fare - On basis of report of Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority removed name of respondent from list of badli conductor - Labour Court holding that enquiry held was fair and proper, proceeded to record evidence - Respondent failed to appear and evidence was taken as closed - Labour Court however set aside termination order and directed reinstatement without backwages and without continuity of service - High Court upheld award in writ - Appeal - High Court was not justified in altering quantum of punishment when enquiry was held to be fair and proper - Punishment imposed was not shockingly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct proved - Carrying passengers without tickets amounts to dishonesty - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The High Court, in our opinion, ought to have seen that the misconduct was duly established in the enquiry and despite it, the Labour Court had persuaded itself to reinstate the delinquent in service. The learned Single Judge also confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in altering the quantum of punishment when the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, charge was proved and no evidence was led before the Labour Court while questioning the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the delinquent workman. Likewise, the High Court also failed to notice the order removing the name of the respondent from the list of badli conductors. The High Court has also erred in taking note of the fact that the punishment imposed on the delinquent official was not shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against him coupled with his history and he being a badli conductor. In our opinion, the Division Bench have erred in rejecting the plea of the Management that the Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondent as regular employee on the ground that such a plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge when as a matter of fact the plea had been taken both before the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court.(Para 7)
       In the instant case, the position held by the employee (conductor) is one of faith and trust. A conductor holds the post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The respondents conduct in not collecting the requisite fare at the designated place from persons who had travelled were in violation of various regulations contained in the provisions of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971. (Para 9)
       We, therefore, set aside the final order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.1565 of 2004 and allow the appeal filed by the Management. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. - Leave granted.

2. The sole respondent was served through the Court on 10.1.2005. However, nobody has appeared for the respondent. We heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management.

3. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal no.1565 of 2004, wherein Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal filed by the appellant herein and ordered accordingly. This Court on 22.8.2005 issued notice to the sole respondent and interim stay was granted in the meantime. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant Corporation as a badli conductor. During his course of employment as badli conductor between the period from 1992 to 1995, he had an unedifying history of misconduct and had been punished by imposing fine. While he was conducting the bus on 12.8.1992, the said bus came to be checked by the checking squad at stage no.2 and it was noticed that the respondent had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers despite collection of money, failed to issue tickets to 4 passengers who were travelling from Sanganakal to KEB, Bellary and had not collected the requisite fare. The respondent had closed the stage no.3 by keeping single digit blank in respect of Rs.1.25 denomination with an intention to re-issue the said denomination tickets in the next trip and the respondent had closed the CWP against the stage no.2 except the Rs.1.75 denomination. The Disciplinary authority directed holding of an enquiry into the articles of charge in terms of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971 by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after having issued notices to both the parties conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent. The proceedings were conducted following the mandatory provisions of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971 and affording adequate opportunity to the delinquent workman to defend his case. The Disciplinary Authority, on re-appraisal of the connected records, came to the conclusion as of the Inquiry Officer and looking at the nature of the offence and its result passed an order on 18.5.1998 removing the name of the respondent from the list of badli conductors.

4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1947 challenging the legality and correctness of the dismissal order passed against him on 18.5.1998. The Labour Court after issuing process to the parties concerned by its order dated 2.1.2002 passed an order holding that the enquiry held was fair and proper. After passing of the preliminary order on issue no.1, i.e. whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent against the claimant is fair and proper, the matter was posted for recording of evidence. The respondent, however, failed to appear before the Court and accordingly the evidence was taken as closed. Later after hearing the arguments, instead of dismissing the petition, vide order dated 25.3.2003 the Labour Court set aside the termination order dated 18.5.1998 and directed the appellant-Management to take the respondent back on the list of badli conductors. However, the Labour Court held that the respondent was not entitled for any back wages and continuity of service.

5. The appellant-Management aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and urged several grounds for consideration. The respondent-workman also approached the High Court by filing writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and thereby upheld the order passed by the Labour Court. The Management preferred writ appeal no.1565 of 2004 and urged several grounds for consi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1138

IMPORTANT POINTCourt would not be justified in altering the quantum of punishment when enquiry into charges of misconduct was held to be fair and proper charge was proved and punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Court would not be justified in altering the quantum of punishment when enquiry into charges of misconduct was held to be fair and proper charge was proved and punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.