AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner-Corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 29.08.2006 passed in Reference No. 130/2000. The Labour Court by the said award has set aside the punishment dated 15.07.1998 imposed on the respondent whereunder the pay scale had been reduced to the scale of Rs. 1150/-. The said punishment had been imposed on the respondent for the alleged misconduct of non-issue of tickets to 12 passengers while he was conducting the bus on 29.04.1998. The respondent claiming to be aggrieved by the punishment had raised a dispute which had been referred to the Labour Court in Ref. No. 130/2000.
A preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry held against the claimant is fair and proper was considered by the Labour Court and by the order dated 05.08.2005, it was held in the negative whereby the findings on the domestic enquiry were set aside. The petitioner-Management thereafter tendered the evidence of M.W. 2 and relied on the documents which were also a part of the records in the domestic enquiry as at Exhs. M1 to M65. The workman had examined himself as WW1 and a witness as WW2 was also examined. The Labour Court on analysing the evidence tendered before it has arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the respondent was not proved. It is in that view, the punishment order dated 15.07.1998 was set aside.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that an award passed on 29.08.2006 has been assailed by the petitioner corporation after only two years, by filing the petition on 26/05/2008. Further what is also necessary to be noticed is that even as on the date of reference being made to the Labour Court, the respondent workman was aged about 59 years and he has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. In this background the manner in which the Labour Court has considered the rival contentions is to be taken note of. It is further to be indicated that the interference in the proceedings would arise only if perversity is found in the findings rendered by the court below i.e., if the evidence available on record has not been analyzed by the Labour Court. In that light, a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court with reference to the analysis made from paragraph 13 of the award would indicate that the Labour Court has taken note of the evidence tendered by M.W.-2 who was examined after the validity of the domestic enquiry was held in the negative. While referring to his evidence, the Labour Court has considered the nature of the charge alleged against the respondent and in that light has taken note of the evidence by keeping in view the number of passengers who were travelling in the bus on the said date. In that light, the allegation against the respondent that he had not issued tickets to 12 passengers was taken into consideration. The case of the petitioner-management was that the penalty had not been paid by the person who were allegedly travelling without tickets and the bus had been taken to the police station. From the evidence, the Labour Court has deduced the fact that 4 of the persons against whom the said allegation of travelling without tickets had been made, had not paid the penalty and there was no indication that the bus was taken to the police station. In that light, taking note of the total passengers who were traveling in the bus, has taken note of the defence put forth by the conductor that even in respect of the persons to whom tickets was yet to be issued it was in the process as there was rush in the bus and it is at that point, inspection had been made. The evidence tendered by the workmen as WW-1 and WW-2 is also referred to in detail by the Labour Court in para 16 of the award.
In such circumstance when the Labour Court has referred to the evidence tendered on behalf of the management as well as the workman and has analyzed the same to arrive at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the respondent had not been proved, certainly, the Labour Court would be justified in setting aside the punishment. That apart, punishment that was imposed was also to reduce the pay scale of the respondent-workman and that too when he was at the verge of retirement.
Therefore keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. It is needless to mention that if terminal benefits of the respondent are yet to be settled by the petitioner, the same shall be calculated and settled as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the petitioners.