IMPORTANT POINT
Power under Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be exercised in a reasonable and judicial manner.
When a bus conductor causes loss to Corporation for personal gains, there is no scope for mercy. Dismissal would be adequate punishment.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal compels us to wonder whether a Legal forum should allow itself to imagine facts and conceive of perverted situations to brush aside the material brought on record and then for contrived reasons arrive at a conclusion that there was possibly no embezzlement or personal gain. The first respondent, a conductor in the service of the U.P. State Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”), despite the factum of carrying 25 passengers without ticket being proved, is relieved and assuaged by substitution of punishment of dismissal with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect taking aid of Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) by the Labour court in invocation of the doctrine of reformation and principle of mercy, and the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction has given the stamp of approval to the award by treating it as just and defensible fundamentally resting its conclusion on the foundation that the controversy hinged on the factual score. The reasoning, if we allow ourselves to say, constrains us to ruminate whether the Labour Court has been swayed away by the concept “forgiveness is the economy of the heart [Hannah More]” and dominantly affected by the conception “mercy among the virtues is like the moon among the stars [E.H. Chapin]”, totally remaining oblivious to the basic principle that when the workman shatters the “institutional trust” and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and belief of the employer, does he deserve any leniency. It is not the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to duty and obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of consideration for imposition of punishment.

2. The necessitous factual depiction is the first respondent was serving as a Conductor under the appellant, Corporation. On 24.10.1992, while he was the conductor of the bus No. UAN 8711, he allowed 25 passengers to travel in the bus without ticket. A report being received from the Assistant Traffic Inspector of the area, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, he was found guilty and accordingly was visited with the punishment of dismissal. On an industrial dispute being raised, the competent authority of the State referred the industrial dispute to the concerned Labour Court under the provisions of the Act. The reference reads as follows:-

“Whether termination of services of Shri Gopal Shukla, S/o late Shri Mathura Prasad Shukla, Conductor, Fatehpur Depot vide order dated

3.12.93 by his employer is legal and valid? If not, then to what benefits/compensation (Relief) the concerned workman is entitled to receive and with what other details?.”

3. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials brought on record took note of the report of the Assistant Traffic Inspector who had reported that 25 passengers without ticket were found in the bus and the conductor had recovered fare from them but had not issued the tickets to them, perused the findings in the domestic enquiry and came to hold that the allegation of personal gain and corruption had really not been established. After so holding, the Labour Court observed that it would be appropriate to give a chance to the workman for improvement in future and there after recorded the conclusion as follows:-

“From the evidence available on record, it is proved that the Petitioner workman has committed illegality but fact of corruption is not proved. On the above basis setting aside the punishment of dismissal awarded by employers against the workman, it is directed that from the date of termination of the services of the Petitioner workman till he is reinstated only half of the wages would be payable and on reinstatement his two annual increments will be stopped without any cumulative effect. According to aforesaid conditions, the petitioner workman is reinstated with continuity of service and othe