Honble SINGHVI, J. — Whether corruption in public services should be overlooked by the courts, whether the court should condone misappropriation, fraud, cheating and similar acts committed by public servant, and whether the court should be a silent and mute spectator of the growing corrruption in public services and grant indulgence in cases of proved corruption by public servants? These are the moot questions which arise out of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner who has made strenuous efforts to persuade the court to annul the award dated 1.9.93 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in reference case No. IT 35/1991.

(2). In order to make a detailed examination of the arguments advanced by learned counsel, it will be appropriate to make the brief reference of facts. The petitioner had been appointed in the service of the Corporationon 25.6.86 on daily wages of Rs. 20 and was posted under Hindon Depot of the Corporation. His service was terminated after he served for about 7 months and 15 days. Though brought about by an order worded innocuously, termination of service of the petitioner was founded on allegation of misconduct, namely, carrying passengers without ticket after collecting fare from them. The petitioner claimed that he was workman concerned in a dispute which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and the employer had not sought approval from the Tribunal under Section 33 (b) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which could be done only by complying with three conditions enumerated in that Section and as such his termination of service is void. With this allegation he filed petition before the Industrial Tribunal Jaipur under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3). During the course of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, an application was made by the employer seeking leave to lead evidence in order to substantiate its case, namely, that the termination of service of the workman was in reality on account of grave acts of misconduct committed by him. The Tribunal granted this permission to the employer by its order dated 4.2.92. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in the form of affidavits and the deponents were subjected to cross examination.

(4). The Tribunal heard the arguments and evaluated the pleadings as well as evidence of the contesting parties and came to the conclusion that allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner that he had carried four passengers and one passengers respectively on 1.2.87 without issuing tickets to them even after collection of the fare, has been fully proved on the basis of evidence of witnesses who were examined on behalf of the Corporation. The Tribunal then turned its to the question of guantum of punishment and came to the conclusion that looking to the length of service of the workman (seven months and a half) and the nature of misconduct found proved against him, there was no warrant for ordering any other penalty than his removal from service. On this premise, the Tribunal upheld the action of employer. But at the same time in recognition of the fact that enquiry had for the first time been made before it and finding of guilt has been recorded for the first time by it, it refused to apply the doctrine of relate back. It passed an award that the workman shall not be entitled for reinstatement but shall be entitled to wages for the period between 11.2.87 to the date of award.

(5). Shri Gupta learned counsel, has argued that award passed by the Tribunal is perverse and suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it bacause the Tribunal has failed to consider the affidavit filed by the petitioner. According to Shri Gupta, being a judicial authority, the Tribunal was under an obligation to take into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of affidavit and then to have recorded a finding about the credibility of evidence. Non consideration of this relevant piece of evidence, according to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document