AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in ID No. 143 of 1997, dated 3-7-1999.
It is stated that the petitioner workman was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 22-10-1984. While he was working as Conductor, on 17-8-1995 a check was conducted by the officials and found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to a batch of four passengers, after collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 1.25 each totalling to Rs.5.00. Accordingly, a charge was issued and an enquiry was conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, the Depot Manager passed orders removing the petitioner from service by order dated 4-12-1995. The said order of removal became the subject matter of the ID at the instance of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the rival contentions and the material on record concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and there were no infirmities warranting interference with the said enquiry. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment the Labour Court relied upon a judgment of this Court and felt that in view of the said decision there are no grounds warranting interference by the Labour Court. Hence, confirmed the same.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was charged for the alleged cash and ticket irregularities to a total sum of Rs.5.00 on the ground that he failed to issue tickets to four passengers. The said fact of cash and ticket irregularities was disputed by the petitioner stating that he had issued the tickets to some of the passengers and while he was issuing tickets, the checking officials have entered the bus and in the course of enquiry by the checking officials the tickets were fallen on the ground in the bus and therefore there was some confusion and the passengers apprehending action against them informed the officials that tickets were not issued. Alternatively, it is contended that even assuming that such a charge has been proved against the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is too excessive and disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-workman. The learned Counsel also contended that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it was the duty of the Labour Court to consider the proportionality of the punishment. It is also stated that the Labour Court merely followed a decision of this Court and concluded that it has no power to go into the proportionality of the punishment. It is also stated that a single Judge of this Court has considered the decision, which was relied upon by the Labour Court and held that the said decision was not rendered without reference to the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it was held by the learned single Judge that the said decision has no application to the cases, which are coining under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. It is therefore contended that in view of the decision of the learned single Judge, the order of the Labour Court is clearly in error. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Colour-Chem Limited v. A.I. Alaspurkar, 1998 (1) SLR 757 (SC) where the Supreme Court has ordered reinstatement of a worker, whose services were terminated, holding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, supported the order of the Labour Court.
After considering the rival submissions and also the decisions cited before me, I am of the opinion that the order of the Labour Court is not proper and just in confirming the order of removal from service. The Labour Court, though upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer, failed to consider the proportionality of the punishment in the light of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Further, the decision of the Division Bench, which was referred to and relied upon by the Labour Court, was considered by a single Judge of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and another Vs. E. Raja Reddy and another, , and it was held that the said decision of the Division Bench lias no application with reference to the cases which are falling under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court, which was relied upon by the learned Counsel in case of Colour-Chem Limited (supra) also supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the workman. The services of the petitioner were terminated or the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities involving a sum of Rs.5.00. Even assuming that the said misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved, still the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and is liable to be set aside.
Under the above circumstances the order of the Labour Court is set aside insofar as the confirmation of the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent. Consequently, the 3rd respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, but without back wages.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.