Important Point—Even short remittance amounts to misconduct.

Petitioner was served with memo dated 31.10.2004 alleging that he short-remitted Rs.195/- on 27.10.2004. On 11.1.2004 petitioner was placed under suspension and was also served with charge memo. The charge memo contained two charges. In the first charge it was alleged that petitioner lodged a false complaint against Travel Ticket Inspectors (for short TTI) alleging tearing of 15 tickets of Rs.13 denomination, even though, petitioner kept the money with him by selling those tickets. In the second charge, it was alleged that he has short-remitted Rs.195/- by wrongly closing tickets bearing denomination of Rs.13/- as 116/516021 instead of 116/516036 on 28.10.2004. The disciplinary action culminated in imposing punishment of removal from service vide order dated 15.3.2006. Appeal and revision were rejected confirming the punishment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.106 of 2006 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short the Labour Court). The Labour Court vide award dated 26.10.2010 affirmed the disciplinary action and punishment imposed dismissing the claim of the petitioner. This writ petition is filed challenging the award.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Narasimha Goud and Sri K.Srinivas Rao, counsel representing learned standing counsel for respondent corporation Sri Aravala Rama Rao.

3.1. The foremost contention of learned counsel for petitioner is whenever an industrial dispute is raised before the Labour Court against an order of removal by the employer consequent to the disciplinary action, it is mandatory for the Labour Court to first frame preliminary issue on the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted and only after the Labour Court is satisfied that the procedure followed by the employer is valid, it can proceed to consider the matter on merits, whereas, in the instant case, the Labour Court did not go into that aspect and straight-away went into merits of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. Thus, on that count alone the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.

3.2. He next contended that even assuming that the Labour Court validly followed the procedure and dwelt into the merits of the case, the Labour Court failed to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with reference to quantum of punishment imposed. It is mandatory for the Labour Court to consider the aspect of quantum of punishment and hold whether punishment is validly imposed whereas this aspect was not even considered.

3.3. He further contended that the Labour Court erred in looking into the past record which was not the subject matter of disciplinary action or the enquiry before the Labour Court, while upholding the punishment imposed against the petitioner and the same is illegal.

3.4. Learned counsel for petitioner also contended that what was alleged against the petitioner was only a lapse on the part of the petitioner; the short remittance has occurred on account of the peculiar circumstances. According to the learned counsel, while the bus was moving, he fell down on the floor of the bus due to ill health and the cash strewed on the floor of the bus. The passengers collected the cash and put into his bag and after completing his duty same was deposited. It is also the responsibility of Assistant Depot Clerk to verify about the remittances of cash and he did not point out about short remittance. On the next day, after completion of the duty assigned to him, when he was informed of short remittance, he immediately credited the balance amount. Learned counsel further contended that there was no ill motive on the part of the petitioner. At the most it can be classified as negligence. Therefore, the punishment imposed is disproportionate and excessive.

3.5. He further contended that there is no merit in the first charge leveled against the petitioner. The record would disclose that no such complaint was f