AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved against the award of the second respondent Labour Court dated 30.6.1997 passed in I.D.No. 96/1996. The petitioner was employed as a driver in the first respondent public transport corporation from 22.8.1980. Re was an Ex-serviceman. On 23.10.1995 he was driving the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN-27-N-0616. On that day at 6.22 p.m., while taking the trip between Salem and Thiruehengodu he is stated to have driven the bus in an uncontrolled manner without the Conductor and that an the passengers became panicky and shouted (sic) the bus was stopped by him outside the bus stand. Thereafter, the trip was stated to have been completed by arranging for an alternate driver. Based on the report of the Conductor given to the Assistant Manager in the time office he was issued with a charge-memo dated 25.10.1995. He submitted his explanation dated 31.10.1995. As the explanation of the petitioner was not convincing an enquiry was ordered to be held in which the petitioner fully participated. The enquiry officer gave his finding in which the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges leveled against him. The petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice dated 16.2.1996 to which he submitted his explanation dated 6.3.1990. The first respondent after considering the explanation of the petitioner and taking note of his past record of service issued the order of dismissal dated 2.5.1996. Challenging the said of dismissal the petitioner raised the present dispute. Before the second respondent Labour Court neither the petitioner nor the first respondent let in any documents on his side. The petitioner did not even file any documents on his side. On behalf of the first respondent, Exs. M1 to M2 were marked. The second respondent Labour court framed two issued for consideration, namely, as to whether the enquiry held against the petitioner was held in a fair proper manner and whether the dismissal order issued to the petitioner was justified. On the first issue the second respondent. Labour Court found that the petitioner was given every Opportunity in the enquiry to cross-examine the wiriness examined in support of the parties apart from permitting him to examine himself and let in any further evidence and that the petitioner himself wade a categoric statement as recorded in the proceedings to the effect that he was given every opportunity the enquiry The second respondent Labour Court also noted that the manner in which the management''s first witness was cross-examined by the petitioner in the enquiry disclosed that he availed the opportunity extended to him by the enquiry officer to the full extent and that no prejudice was caused to him. Therefore, on the first issue, the second respondent Labour Court held that there was no infirmity in the manner in which the enquiry was held. On the second issue, the second respondent Labour Court after detailed analysis of the evidence held that there was enough material to prove the'' charges levelled against the petitioner as reported by the enquiry officer and since the charges were serious in nature the order of dismissal was fully justified.
Assailing the award, Mr. V. Ajoy Khose learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the enquiry the petitioner was not given necessary assistance and thereby he was not able to effectively cross-examine the witnesses and put forth his case. The learned Counsel therefore contended that the conclusion of the second respondent Labour Court as to the fairness of the enquiry in liable to be set aside.
On merit the learned Counsel contended that though it was alleged in the enquiry that the petitioner was in drunken state of affairs, there was no legal evidence to support the said (sic). According to the learned Counsel in the absence of necessary medical evidence such a conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer which was accepted by the second respondent Labour Court was not proper and valid. The learned Counsel therefore contended that the conclusion that the misconduct was proved is liable to be SET ASIDE and the ultimate rejection of the petitioner''s claim should also be interfered with.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner I am the view of the contention of the petitioner merits any consideration. Time and again it is being repeatedly pronounced that drunken driving has become a menace to the society at large, yet the message appears to have not reached the concerned personnel to the extent to which it is expected to have reached. It is unfortunate that the persons who drive the motor vehicles in a public road are least concerned about the interest of the order road users when drive the vehicle in a drunken mood. The present case is a classic example of the driver of the public transport corporation vehicle who has been found to have driven the vehicle in a drunken mood and thereby, put the lives of the hopeless passengers at a grave risk which came to be fortunately prevented by the passengers themselves on noticing the reckless manner in which the vehicle was driven by the petitioner on the relevant date and time. The petitioner who was on duty on that date for taking the trip from Salem to Thiruchengodu was stated to have admittedly moved the static vehicle in the bus stand with the passengers in an (sic) manner even without the presence of the Conductor and necessary signal by him and the passengers on noticing the state of mind of the petitioner who was found to have been not in his senses at all at that point of timer some how managed to stop him from proceeding further by the, time the vehicle came out of the bus stand. The panic shouting of the passengers appeared to have forced the petitioner in spite of the insensible position in which he was placed to stop the vehicle. Immediately thereafter the Conductor is also stated to have rushed towards the vehicle and on finding the state of affairs and the physical condition of the petitioner, the Conductor fairly reported the same to the Assistant Manager in the time keeper''s office who made a further probe by questioning the petitioner while questioning the petitioner the Assistant Manager also noticed that the petitioner was (sic) drunks and was in his senses and in three circumstance, the engagement of the service of an alternate drive was stated to have been immediately arranged by the Assistant Manager for completing the trip. The above factors have come out in the enquiry through the examination of the Conductor and the Assistant Manager as M.Ws. 1 and 2. While M.w.1 the conductor stated that he noticed the condition of the petitioner as worse in the sense that he was not (sic) , the Assistant manager made a very clear and categoric statement that the petitioner was found in a drunken mood at the relevant point of time. Though the petitioner cross-examined the conductor M.W.1, he could not dislodge his evidence to any extent. As far as the evidence of Assistant Manager was concerned the petitioners had chosen not to cross-examine him. Therefore, the said evidence of the Assistant Manager to the effect that the petitioner was found to have been in a drunken mood at that point of time was unassailable and (sic).
Though Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted to suggest that the drunkenness of the petitioner ought not to have been concluded based on mare oral statement of the M.Ws.1 and 2 and that there ought to have been a medical examination, I am afraid such a stand of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. In the case on hand where none of the witnesses examined in support of the charges had any (sic) to grind against the petitioner (sic) it is not the case of the petitioner that either the Conductor or the Assistant Manager ware inimically disposed of towards the petitioner and that there was a calculated attempt at the hands of the first respondent Corporation to do away with the service of the petitioner by fabricating any charges against the petitioner, much less the charge of drunken driving. Therefore, merely because there was no medical evidence it cannot be straightaway concluded on that score that (sic) The evidence of M.Ws.1 and 2 in the enquiry are (sic) have been to the eschewed from consideration and the petitioner to be held to have mot guilty of the charges, further when the petitioner examined himself before the enquiry officer it was suggested to the petitioner on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner moved the vehicle by loosing his own senses and because of that the Corporation had engaged the services of an alternate driver. The petitioner categorically admitted the said suggestion. To a specific question put to the petitioner in the enquiry as to why an alternate, driver was engaged for the said trip, the petitioner again stated without any reservation that according to the Conductor the petitioner was in a drunken wood. All the above evidence satisfactorily established the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 25.10.1995. In such circumstances, I do not find any flaw much less a perverse conclusion in the award impugned in this writ petition both on the issue as regards the fairness in the enquiry as well as merits of the misconduct as found proved against the petitioner.
Inasmuch as the misconduct found proved against the petitioner is drunken driving which in my humble opinion is a social menace, in the present day context where the number of vehicles in the road are humerous, it will be wholly unsafe to think of any lesser punishment to the petitioner than dismissal from service. More over, in the past also as per Ex.M12 for a similar conduct the petitioner was imposed with, a punishment of six months increment cut with cumulative effective. Unfortunately, even the said punishment did not seem to have had any effect on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the ultimate conclusion of the second respondent Labour Court in holding that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner cannot also be found fault with.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation and Another, wherein the Honourable supreme Court upheld the award of the Labour Court which exercised its jurisdiction u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in a case where drunken driving of the public transport Corporation vehicle was by a driver was considered and the punishment of dismissal was set aside instead refusal of backwages was ordered. The Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of the judgment made it clear that the driver of a passenger bus or for that matter any mechanically propelled vehicle cannot and should not consume intoxicating liquor while on duty because that endangers the safety not only of those in the vehicle but those using the roads also. In the said, case it was further noted that that was the first instance and therefore, the discretionary power exercised by the Labour Court u/s 11 A need not be interfered with. The Supreme Court further held that the said punishment was not an adequate one and a further punishment of three increments cut in the time scale on reinstatement. Ultimately, the Honourable Court stated that humanistic approach should not induce the driver to repeat his intemperate performance.
By taking a clue from the said decision, I am of the view that in the case on hand where the petitioner has repeated his misconduct the second time it will be highly dangerous and risky in the interests of society to direct reinstatement of the petitioner as that will give a wrong signal to others that in spite of such reckless conduct one can get away with it by seeking for the mercy of the Court in matter of punishment.
For all the above said reasons, I do not find any scope to interfere with the award impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.