D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE Karnataka state road transport corporation, employer of the respondent has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated June 29, 2000 passed by the learned single judge of this court in W. P. No. 37687/1998. Affirming the award passed by the labour court, mangalore, in i. d. Application No. (lcm)-126/19 dated March 20, 1998, praying for setting aside the order of the learned single judge and also for quashing of the award and for other incidental reliefs.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the respondent/workman who was working as conductor in the service of the appellant/corporation in the year 1968 onwards was found to have committed certain acts of misconduct while working as a conductor. It appears that the respondent was conducting the corporation bus bearing myf-9821 which was plying on mangalore-puttur road and while so plying, the bus was inspected on November 24, 1985 by the inspecting squad of the corporation and found that the conductor had not issued tickets to some passengers but had collected fare from them and in view of the same, an article of charge dated December 31, 1985 came to be issued which reads as under:a) that on November 24, 1985 while conducting vehicle No. 9821 on mangalore-puttur road on central line checking squad, mangalore, checked the bus bearing No. Myf-9821 at pane-mangalore and found 38 passengers in the bus and found that (sic) the first respondent had failed to issue tickets to 4 passengers travelling from mangalore to pane-mangalore despite collection of the requisite fare of Rs. 3. 00each and pilfered Rs. 12. 00. B) that the first respondent had failed to issue tickets to 2 passengers travelling from b. c. Road to pane - mangalore despite collection of Rs. 0. 75ps. Each and pilfered Rs. 1. 50. workman having denied the charges, the appellant conducted an enquiry into the incident and for determining the correctness or otherwise of the charges levelled against him under the Provisions of the Karnataka state road transport corporation servants (conduct and discipline) regulations 1971. Pursuant to the enquiry the disciplinary authority passed an order dated April 6, 1987 holding that the charges were held proved against the conductor and accordingly imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

( 3 ) THE respondent/employee questioned the correctness of this dismissal by seeking a reference before the labour court, mangalore, by filing an industrial disputes application (lcm) 126/1988 under the Provisions of Section 10 (4-a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Karnataka Act 3/1988.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties before the labour court, the labour court framed three issues as under: a) whether the d. e. Against applicant is proper and valid? B) whether the order of dismissal is legal and valid? Whether the appellant is entitled for reinstatement?

( 5 ) THE first issue being treated as preliminary issue was taken up and it was answered against the appellant/management holding that the departmental enquiry was not proper and valid as per the order dated March 14, 1995 passed by the labour court in this regard.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the management was given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges and the appellant/management led evidence.

( 7 ) ON assessment of the material before court, the labour court came to the conclusion that while the court cannot conclude that the first charge is proved against the workman by giving benefit of doubt to him, the labour court held on the second charge that, even on the admitted evidence of the workman, the second charge is made home. However, in this regard, the labour court has sought to mitigate the rigor of this charge by surmising that the workman might not have intended to cause loss to the management by non-issue of tickets. In the background of such a finding given by the labour court, the labour court has examined the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document