AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the order dated 03.01.2004 and the award dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Prl. Labour Court, Hubli.
Petitioner was appointed as a trainee conductor for a period of two years on certain terms and conditions as per the appointment order dated 07.12.1996. While he was working in Dharwad Depot, on 17.02.2000, he was conducting the bus bearing registration No. F 1024 on the route Basavana Koppa to Dhawad. The vehicle was intercepted and checked by the Checking Squad between stage No. 6 and 5 and it was found that petitioner did not issue tickets to 8 passengers travelling from Asaranji to Hulukoppa and to 3 passengers travelling from stage No. 6 to 4. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.02.2000 alleging that he had committed the aforesaid misconduct of not issuing tickets after collecting fare from the passengers.
Petitioner gave a reply dated 02.03.2000 denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the course of enquiry, one of the Checking Inspectors was examined in support of the case of the Management. The workman on his part examined two passengers whose statements had been allegedly recorded at the time of inspection by the Inspecting Squad by name Sri Veerabhadra Gouda and Sri Basappa Hudeda. These witnesses did not support the case of the Management. They have stated that they were proceeding to attend a death ceremony; they requested for stoppage of the bus and had not paid any fare to the conductor. These two witnesses were not cross-examined by the Management. However, the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent guilty and submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 12.12.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service by accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court on the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the enquiry. The Labour Court vide its order dated 05.01.2004 held that the enquiry was fair and proper because the claimant had understood the allegation made against him, he had participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the management witnesses and hence there was no lapse in the enquiry.
As regards merits of the matter, the Labour Court has recorded a finding based on the receipts evidencing the payment of penalty by the passenger attested by the delinquent workman and also the statement of the group leaders of the ticketless passengers marked as Ex. M4A and Ex. M4B to hold that allegation made against the workman had been proved. It is also found that there was no need to examine ticketless passengers. It is further found that the Inspector had collected the unpunched tickets from the petitioner as per Ex. M3. Thus, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it was the case where the petitioner had failed to issue tickets to the passengers despite collecting requisite fee from the passengers.
The Labour Court has also taken note of the fact that petitioner was involved in such misdemeanor earlier in 11 cases.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that as per Annexure-D, order of appointment dated 10/11.07.2001 petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a conductor and his probation period was to start with effect from 03.05.1999. According to the learned counsel, if the petitioner had been appointed with effect from 03.05.1999 as a probationer, he could not have been treated as a trainee employee as the Regulations framed by the Corporation were made applicable to the services of the petitioner in terms of Clause 15 of the appointment order. He, therefore, contends that as per Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, no order imposing any of the major penalties shall be made except by holding an enquiry in the manner provided in Regulation 23. He points out that without issuing Article of Charges, petitioner could not have been subjected to face the enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry conducted is characterised as not fair and proper. Hence, the Labour Court erred in coming to a contrary conclusion by passing the impugned order on IA-I. He also points out that even on merits, the Labour Court erred in law in not taking note of the fact that the passengers who had been examined before the Enquiry Officer by the workman had supported the case of the workman and their version was not challenged by cross-examining them. He, therefore, urges that on merits also, findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1805 : (1984) 49 FLR 424 : (1986) LabIC 374 : (1984) 2 LLJ 517 : (1984) 2 SCALE 428 : (1984) 4 SCC 635 : (1985) 1 SCR 866 : (1984) 2 SLJ 492 : (1985) 17 UJ 465 to urge that where a quasi-judicial tribunal or arbitrator records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are either his ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated.
Counsel for the respondent supports the findings recorded by the Labour Court and urges that the petitioner-workman was a trainee conductor during the relevant period and had indulged in serious misappropriation of funds by misappropriating the fare paid by the passengers and that his past conduct has been taken into consideration while imposing penalty of dismissal of service. He urges that detailed procedure contemplated under the service Rules are not applicable to the trainee conductor.
Having heard learned counsel for both parties and on careful perusal of the entire material available on record, I find that the misconduct in the instant case was resorted to by the workman when he was a trainee employee. The show cause notice was issued on 18.02.2000 when he was discharging his duties as a trainee employee. The incident took place on 17.02.2000. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be regarded as a regular employee as on the date the alleged incident took place and therefore a regular enquiry in terms of the Regulations of 1971, ought to have been held is not tenable in law.
Annexure-D, order of appointment cannot be treated to have retrospective effect to clothe the petitioner/workman with the status of a regular workman with effect from 03.05.1999. Such an intention does not emerge clearly from the terms of the appointment order dated 10/11.07.2001. The petitioner/employee was given show cause notice. The contents of the show cause notice clearly spells out the nature of the allegations and the charge levelled against the petitioner. He has submitted his reply to the same. Petitioner has participated in the proceedings. He has been given sufficient opportunity during the course of enquiry. Therefore, the Labour Court was right and justified in holding that the disciplinary enquiry conducted was fair and proper.
As regards merits of the case, the Labour Court has dealt with in detail the documentary and oral evidence on record. It has referred to the receipts duly signed by the passenger for having paid the penalty for not securing the tickets and travelling without tickets. Merely, because some such passengers had come and deposed in favour of the employee in the departmental enquiry, the allegations made against the delinquent cannot be brushed aside. The documentary evidence in the form of Ex. M4A, Ex. M4B and Ex. M5 copy of the offence memo which was served upon the petitioner/workman on the spot itself, Ex. M6, the way bill operated by the petitioner/workman wherein an endorsement has been made by the Inspector for having checked the bus coupled with Ex. M7 submitted by the Line Checking Squad have been rightly taken into consideration by the Labour Court to hold that accusation made against the employee has been proved.
In exercise of the power and jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court will not interfere with such findings so as to upset the finding of facts arrived at by the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence on record. It is not a case where findings in the domestic enquiry as appreciated and dealt with by the Labour Court are not based on any legal evidence. The sufficiency of such evidence and the degree of proof are matters within the province of the Labour Court.
The findings of the Labour Court are not perverse. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the award passed. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.