The Labour Court cannot modify disciplinary punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct; failure to provide cogent reasons for modification renders the interference arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the propriety, validity, and correctness of the Award dated 24.02.2020 (Annex.1) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the punishment imposed upon the respondent-workman of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was modified to non-cumulative effect, seeking following relief:-

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ order or direction the impugned order dt. 24.02.2020 Annex. I may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside.

Any other relief to which petitioners appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The facts giving rise to the dispute are that on 08.08.2014, while the respondent-workman was discharging his duties as a Conductor on the Sri Ganganagar to Raisinghnagar route, the bus was inspected by the inspection team upon its arrival at Chunavadh. During inspection, ten passengers were found travelling without tickets. A red remark was marked by the inspection team, whereafter the respondent-workman allegedly misled the passengers and abused and assaulted the members of the inspection team. A report was submitted to the competent authority, pursuant to which the respondent-workman was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.08.2014. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 20.08.2014 was issued, and after due proceedings, the respondent-workman was awarded the punishments of censure, stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, deduction of 2% of salary for a period of 24 months, and forfeiture of the balance salary for the suspension period. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. As the conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was sent, and the appropriate Government, vide notification dated 25.01.2018, referred the dispute for adjudication, which ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned Award.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award dated 24.02.2020 (Annex.1) passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar is ex-facie illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction to the extent it modifies a lawful departmental punishment without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reason. He further submits that the Labour Court itself has recorded a categorical finding that the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper, that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman, and further that the charges stood proved, including the serious misconduct of carrying 10 passengers without tickets and misbehaving with the inspection team, having upheld the enquiry and the findings of guilt, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the punishment unless it was shockingly disproportionate, which finding is completely absent in the impugned award.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the worker’s proven misconduct seriously breaks discipline and trust because, as a conductor who is handling public money, carrying passengers without tickets would cause financial loss to the corporation, and misbehaving physically with inspection staff makes the offence even more serious. He also submits that in service jurisprudence, the nature of the misconduct involved has consistently been held to warrant even the extreme penalty of dismissal from service; therefore, the disciplinary authority had already exercised considerable leniency by imposing only the punishment of