1981 Supreme(MP) 43

C. P. Sen, J.
M.P. S. R.T. C. v. Ramgopal.
Misc. Petn. No. 68 of 1977 (G); Decided on 29-1-1981.

Headnote:(1) Industrial Law -- domestic enquiry -- dismissal on the basis of -- when can he interfered with -- principles laid down.

        (2) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 -- S. 1 (a) -- manager includes Depot Manager and Chief Executive Officer also.

        (3) Natural Justice -- copies of documents not demanded by delinquent employee -- non-supply of documents does not vitiate the principles of natural justice.

        (4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 101 and 102 -- burden of proof -- can very well be discharged by examining departmental witnesses.

        The respondent No.1 was employed as a Conductor in the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 30-5-1972 the respondent No. 1 was Conductor in bus No. MPG 4856 which was going on the route Morena-Bhind. The bus was checked at about 9.40 p.m. at Bareshi Ki Tiwaria .by Assistant Supervisor S.C. Kulshreshtha and Tickets Examiner R. C. Gupta four passengers were found without Tickets. Four Tickets Ex. D-S to L-8 were issued to the passengers, Rs. 41 recovered towards fare. Form B. Ex. P-7 was prepared, necessary endorsement was made on the collection sheet Ex. D-9 and are port was submitted to the Depot Manager, Morena for necessary action by Kul shreshtha. The Depot Manager Morena decided to held a departmental enquiry and authorised Head Clerk Ram Sharma to hold the enquire in respect of the following five charges (i) four passengers were found traveling without ticket, (ii) the departmental instructions were violated in allowing the bus to move without first issuing tickets, (iii) by not issuing tickets there is contravention of section 4 of Motor Vehicles Passenger Tax Act, up collection sheet allowed the bus to move with dishonest intention, and (iv) there was dishonest intention to embezzle from the income of the Corporation, there by there has been contravention of Standard Standing Order 12(1) (b) and (d).

        The enquiry officer. after recording evidence of Kulshreshtha who produced the documents, submitted his report on 5-8-1972 holding that the charges have been proved. The report was accepted by the Depot Manager who dismissed the respondent No.1 from service with effect from 19-8-1972.

        Held : The action of the employer in dismissing or discharging a workman can be interfered by the Industrial Tribunal when (i) there is want of good faith, (ii) there is victimisation or unfair labour practice (iii) the management has been guilty of bias error or violations of principles of natural justice, and (iv) on the material the finding is completely baseless or perverse. It has further been held that the Tribunal does not act as a Court of appeal and substitutes its own judgment for that of the management and the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice etc., on the part of the man3gement.The labour Court has mainly set aside the domestic enquiry because it found that it was not authorised that there has been violations of principles of natural justice and there has been tampering with the record of the domestic enquiry. It has not been held that there is want of good faith or victimisation or unfair labour practice or on the material the finding is completely baseless or perverse. It is not in dispute that the Standard Standing Orders framed under M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, govern the Service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. Under Standard Standing Order I (a) Manager means a person whom an undertaking shall nominate as Manager for the purposes of Standing Orders and includes a person authorised by him. Under section 15 of the M.P. Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 General Manager is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and all other officers and servants of the Corporation are subordinate to him. Under Order No. 143 dated 6-7-1%3 the General Manager declared all Depot Managers to be Managers for certain categories of staff including Conductors. Thereafter the General Manager issued order No. 21 dated 17-9-1965 directing that an enquiry in pilferage cases- detected by fiying squads will be conducted by the Depot Managers, Head quarters of the concerned divisions and such cases will no longer be dealt with by the Depot Managers concerned. This is to ensure speedy disposal of cases.

        This was clarified by the General Managers order No. 498 of 10-1-66 directing that the Depot Managers at Divisional head-quarters are declared as Managers with regard to their division for conducting pilferage cases detected by flying squads. This order was modified by another order of the General Manager dated 15-9-1966 that all now incoming cases will be dealt by the respective Depot Managers who should note that no case should remain pending without action for more than four days. Therefore, it is clear that a manager means the General Manager of the Corporation and the persons authorised by him. The General Manager has authorised all Depot Managers to be Managers for certain categories of employees including conductor. Under Standard Standing Order (1) (a) Manager includes a person authorised by him. So the Depot Manager, Morena, could delegate to Head Clerk Ramraj Sharma to hold the enquiry and there was nothing wrong in it. No objection was raised at any time that he was not so authorised. The Depot Manager, Morena, being the disciplinary authority had the jurisdiction to order an enquiry and impose punishment after finding that the charges have been proved.

        It is clear that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner and there was violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent No.1 cross-examined Kulshreshlha and never demanded copies of any documents. Under clause 12(4) of Standard Standing Order it was not necessary for the management to supply copies of the documents to the respondent No.1 along with the charges. In any case, nothing prevented the respondent No. 1 from taking inspections or demanding copies. From the report it is further clear that Kulshreshtha was examined first and then the statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded.

        The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager which bas also been dismissed but a copy of the grounds of appeal has not been proceed to show that the grounds now being taken before the Labour Court were taken before the appellate authority also. In the approach notice and also in the application before the Labour Court there is no mention that the statements of the respondent No.1 was taken first and that his witnesses Phulchand and laxmichand, though present, were not examined. There is no valid reason why the respondent No.1 failed to mention this material fact in his pleadings. The Labour Court was therefore, not justified in accepting the bald statement of the respondents No.1 that his statement was recorded first and similarly in accepting his statement and that of Phulchand that although they were present in Court their statements were not recorded. The Supreme Court in Employees of E. T. And R. Co. v. The Workmen (1967 FLJ 462) has held that even if the statement of the delinquent was recorded first before recording the statement of the departmental witnesses, the procedure is fair to the delinquent than ordinary procedure and unless prejudice is shown such procedure does not vitiate the enquiry.

        The Supreme Court in East India Hotels v. Workmen (1974) 3 SCC 712 has held that it is not necessary that outside complainant should be necessarily examined in departmental enquiries and his non-examination does not make the enquiry invalid. It is also common knowledge that it is very difficult to trace out the passengers and the departmental authorities had no option power of machinery to ensure the attendance of outside witnesses. So non-mention of the names and address of the four passengers was immaterial as the facts are not disputed. The decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Tarlochand Singh v. State of Punjab (1975 lab. IC 986) is clearly distinguishable. 1958 (1) JLJ 260, (1973) 3 SCC 779, 1967 FLJ 462 (SC) and (l974) 3 SCC, 712 relied on. Petition allowed.