AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Award dated 28.08.2006 in I.D.No. 42 of 2005 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad is impugned in this Writ Petition.
Petitioner raised the above dispute to set aside the order of removal on the ground that it is unjust and illegal and seeking his reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits.
The case of petitioner is that he was engaged as a casual conductor on 04.02.1999. However, alleging cash and ticket irregularities and tampering the recorded evidence, departmental proceedings ensued which resulted in termination of his services with effect from 16.03.2004. Appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected on 17.05.2004. It is the grievance of petitioner that he was implicated in this case as he filed E.P.No. 6 of 2001 on the file of Labour Court-II seeking attachment of property for not affecting regularisation of his service. According to petitioner, the lady passenger who was found travelling without ticket was penalised by imposing fine of Rs.20/- and fare of Rs.4/-was also collected, hence, he is not responsible for any misconduct whatsoever. He denied that he altered MTD 141 from 18+1 to 48+1.
It is stated that the Labour Court held domestic enquiry as valid on the ground that petitioner on 29.08.2005, filed a memo under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, though at that time, he categorically stated that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and prayed the Court to grant the relief as prayed for by re-appreciating the material available before them.
Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that there was no tampering of record, ought not to have held the charges as proved. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court opined that there were no mala fides and deliberate intention on his part in respect of charge No.1, hence, denial of back wages as well as notional increments and imposing deferment of two increments without cumulative effect is wrong. Petitioner was implicated in this case as a measure of victimisation for getting the service regularised through coercive method by filing E.P. No. 6 of 2001 and this fact the Labour Court failed to appreciate, complains the learned counsel. Since the date of removal to the date of reinstatement, petitioner remained unemployed, hence, learned counsel submits that his client is entitled to receive back wages and consequential benefits. Sri Goud places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhik Nath AIR 2005 SC 1571, wherein in paragraphs 6 and 10, it has been observed as under:
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that number of passengers standing at the time of check was only 18+1, however, petitioner altered the number in the SR to 48+1 which clearly establishes that he tampered the evidence to give an impression that there are more number of passengers, so that by mistake he could not issue ticket to one lady passenger. He emphasizes that not issuing a ticket to the lady passenger is grave misconduct and negligence of petitioner which cannot be tolerated at all.
After hearing learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record.
Ex.M1 (STAR) bears the endorsement of checking officials which shows that checking took place at 16.35 hours on 16.12.2003 and they boarded the bus at stage No.1 and got down at stage No.11; number of passengers travelling in the bus at the time of check was noted as 48+1 = 49 and one lady passenger was found without ticket and no fare was collected. Ex.M3 – MTD 43R Inspector’s check sheet shows that number of passengers travelling in the bus at the relevant time was 18+1 = 19. Though the case of Corporation is that in Ex.M1, 18 number was altered to 48 with a view to crate that more number of passengers were travelling in the bus and due to inadvertence, ticket was not issued to one passenger, on close perusal of Ex.M1, it appears that 48+1 = 49 is very clearly mentioned and no alternation was appeared to have been made. The Labour Court also found that on close scrutiny of these figures, it is not so explicit to find out that it has been altered, perhaps, it may be a mistake of checking who might have made 48+1 = 49 but by mistake in Ex.M3-MTD-43R, they have noted as 18+1 = 19 and unless, Ess.M1 and M3 were referred to hand writing expert, no opinion can be formed on this aspect. This Court is in full agreement with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and does not take a contra view.
Coming to the aspect of not issuing ticket to one lady passenger is concerned, there is no evidence that petitioner deliberately failed to issue ticket with a view to cause loss to the Corporation. For this, petitioner explained that he had issued ticket but the passenger misplaced. The checking officials, as stated by petitioner, issued a top-punched ticket of Rs.4/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.20/- for not purchasing the ticket. However, they failed to record the statement of the passenger to corroborate their version. In his cross-examination, the TTI also stated that lady passenger paid fine of Rs.20/- and made him to collect Rs.4/- fare amount and the passenger cheated for which she has paid Rs.20/- penalty. Hence, in view of the above, no mala fide intention can be attributed to petitioner for not issuing ticket. Therefore, imposing punishment of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years can be held to be unjust.
Regarding the charge that petitioner was working without MTD 141 card, during the course of enquiry, it was established that MTD-141 card was not supplied to him and the relevant column in Ex.M1 also shows as ‘NIL’. As rightly, held by the Labour Court, it is the duty of the conductor to obtain document MTD 141 which is essential for him and it is also duty of the management to issue that document. Not possessing 141 MTD card is in violation of Conduct Regulations of APSRTC. Hence, this Court is not inclined to find fault with the conclusion with respect to the same.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. While upholding the Award insofar as it directed reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages, rest of the Award with regard to imposing punishment of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years is set aside. The Corporation is directed to pay arrears within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.