O R D E R

Petitioner-workman was appointed to the post of driver-cum-conductor in the respondent-corporation, for the non-issuance of two tickets of Rs.1062/- denominations to two passengers traveling from Bangalore to Ernakulam, the articles of charges were issued, enquiry was conducted, the enquiry report was submitted, the Disciplinary Authority on not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman and being of the opinion that the material on record established the charge of non-issuance of tickets, finding that the history sheet of the workman revealed that the workman had involved in ten default cases and though minor punishments were imposed in earlier cases, the workman failed to reform and repeatedly tried to pilfer the State revenue and dismissed the workman from the service by order dated 22.01.2016.

2. Petitioner-workman aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed a claim petition under Section 10 read with Section 2A of Amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act’ for short), contending that the order of dismissal by the Corporation is not sustainable and that he was discharging his work as a driver- cum-conductor and the checking staff for statistical purpose and to reach the target has registered a false case against the workman and that no statements of the passengers were recorded and no penalty was collected in front of the workman neither the cash was checked at spot.

3. On notice, the respondent-Corporation resisted the claim by filing a counter statement inter alia contending that the workman failed to issue tickets to group of two passengers despite collecting requisite fee from the said passengers and as such, they have registered the case imposing a penalty of Rs.1,000/- to the said passengers and issued penalty receipt on their report. Corporation contended that the act on the part of the workman is unbecoming of a Corporation servant as he has not discharged his duties honestly and in spite of minor punishments being imposed for the earlier ten default cases involved, the workman has not mend his ways.

4. The Labour Court on the point of the domestic enquiry held that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. Thereafter, both the parties adduced evidence on merits, after considering and appreciating the documentary evidence, the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition filed by the workman.

5. Heard Sri. Shekar .L, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation.

6. The Labour Court on consideration held that the workman has misappropriated Rs.2,124/- and the checking officials have collected the penalty from the ticket less travelers and their statements have been recorded, which is marked at Exs.M.1 and M.3 respectively.

7. The management examined witness as M.W.2 and M.W.3 to substantiate that imposing of punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct of the workman.

8. The workman’s counsel would urge the following grounds:

i. That on the similar charges framed against the co-worker, the management has imposed minor punishment.

ii. The statement of the passengers have not been recorded.

iii. Non-intimating the past records of the workman at the time of disciplinary proceedings.

9. The Labour Court held that the charges are proved and that the workman cannot be let go free as he is unbecoming of the public servant, as such, held that the order of dismissal passed by the corporation is just, proper and legal. It is a well settled principle that, after the insertion of Section 11A to the ID Act, if the enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, the opportunity needs to be accorded to the Corporation to justify that the action taken by the Corporation is justified. On the evidence adduced by the parties before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has power to appreciate the entire evidence.

10. The Apex Court in the case of The workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of