IMPORTANT POINTS
Powers of labour court to interfere with quantum of punishment should be exercised judiciously.
Order of termination of a bus conductor on probation caught carrying passengers and luggage without ticket on more than five occasions for which warning already issued and whose terms of appointment expressly provide for termination for such misconduct during probation, and where departmental enquiry is held to be proper; should not be interfered.
Certified Standing orders prevail over executive circulars.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Extent of interference with the quantum of punishment imposed by an employer on a delinquent employee by the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:

Respondent herein was appointed as a conductor by the appellant - corporation on or about 6.8.1982 as a daily wager for a specific period on the expiry whereof his services came to an end. He was, however, appointed as a conductor on probation for a period of two years by an offer dated 26.3.1983, inter alia, on the terms and conditions laid down therein; the relevant claim whereof reads as under:

"4. That on being caught by the inspection team and on finding corruption their services could be terminated at any time and the security amount would be seized."

Within the aforementioned period of probation, inspections were carried out in the buses in which he had been discharging his duties as a conductor and on not less than five occasions, i.e., on 4.4.1983, 11.5.1983, 23.9.1983, 21.11.1983 and 8.2.1984, he was found to have not issued tickets to the passengers. Indisputably, on or about 19.4.1993, in relation to the incident which took place on 4.4.1983, a warning was administered to him, stating:

"You were on duty on date 4.4.83 in the vehicle no. 6070 at the Vayavar Udaipur road. After the inspection of the vehicle it was found that you were carrying 2 passengers without tickets. The Checking staff collected the fare from the same and issued the tickets.

Therefore, you are hereby warned to be careful in the near future otherwise your probation period would be terminated."

After he was found guilty of having not issued tickets to the two passengers and carrying 180 kilograms luggage without a ticket, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was placed under suspension.

The fairness of the disciplinary enquiry is not in question. By reason of an order dated 15.6.1984, the Divisional Manager of the Corporation being the Appointing Authority terminated his services, stating:

"On the basis of the complaints received against Shri Kamruddin S/o Shri Sikandar Khan, Conductor, Vayavar Depot he was suspended vide the Office Order No. 395 dated 13.2.84 and was issued the Charge sheet no. 404 dated 24.2.84. In respect of the inquiry of the imposed charges the Divisional Depot Manager, Ajmer was appointed the Inquiry Officer vide the Office order no. 581 dated 3.3.84.

After completing the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer the enquiry report was produced. I have carefully gone through the same along with the available record. The Inquiry Officer has found the conductor guilty of the imposed charges. I fully agree with the view of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, I, Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Ajmer, impose the following punishment under Section 36(5) and (7) of the Standing Orders on Shri Kamruddin s/o Shri Sikandar Khan, Conductor, Vayavar Depot after finding him guilty in the aforesaid case.

1. I seize the remaining salary of the suspension period in the interest of the Corporation.

1. I terminate his probation period after removing him from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect."

4. Respondent raised an industrial dispute. By reason of an Award dated 16.7.1996, the Labour Court despite finding that the enquiry was fairly conducted opined that the punishment inflicted on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, stating:

"Therefore, it would not be just and proper to impose the severe punishment of the termination from the service but keeping in view the proved misconduct on the part of the applicant this court could amend the penalty keeping in view the provisions of