AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—These appeals arise out of common order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2000 passed in W.P. Nos.
13679 and 14585 of 1993. By the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the two separate awards of the first Respondent
Labour Court. Since the facts involved in two disputes disposed of by the first Respondent Labour Court are different, we feel it appropriate to
refer to those facts alone, in order to appreciate the correctness of the ultimate conclusion in respective awards and the Order of the learned Single
Judge.
The award concerned in W.A. No. 3099/2001 was passed in I.D. No. 591/1990. The second respondent was employed as a Conductor in
the appellant Corporation. According to the appellant, on 28.08.1989, when the 2nd respondent was working as Conductor in the Transport
Corporation vehicle bearing registered No. TMS 6775, the vehicle was checked by Checking Inspectors at 4.30 p.m. near Sourashtra Colony.
There were 31 passengers in the vehicle. According to the Checking Inspectors, the second Respondent after noticing their presence, rushed to a
lady passenger and punched the tickets issued to her and that when they verified those tickets, they found that those tickets were of Rs. 1.35
denomination of three numbers and that instead of punching it in the ''Up direction'', he had punched it in the ''down side''. It is also stated that
when they enquired with the passenger, she reported that she purchased the tickets for her travel between Anupadini to Niyalur, by paying Rs.
10/- to the conductor, that she was issued with the tickets and that the conductor made entry at the backside of the ticket and ensured that he
would give the balance at the time when she would alight from the bus. The Checking Inspectors therefore, concluded that since those tickets were
the last of the tickets issued as per the invoice, the second Respondent did not punch those tickets in order to reissue the same at the end point, by
collecting the tickets from the passenger while paying back the balance money. It was on the above basis, the appellant concluded that the second
Respondent attempted to misappropriate the sum of Rs. 4.05/- for his personal gain.
The second Respondent was issued with a charge memo dated 06.09.1989, and after submission of his explanation, enquiry was ordered to be
held, in which the second Respondent participated. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, after issuance of the second Show Cause Notice,
and after receipt of his explanation to the second Show Cause Notice, the second Respondent was dismissed from service by order dated
23.11.1989.
The issue relating to the non-employment of the second respondent went up for adjudication before the first Respondent as I.D. No. 591/1990.
Labour Court raised four issues for consideration viz., whether the enquiry held against the second Respondent was fair and proper; whether the
charges levelled against the second respondent were proved; whether the punishment of dismissal was justified and whether the benefit of Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act should be extended to the second respondent.
As far as the enquiry was concerned, the Labour Court took the view that in the enquiry, only one Checking Inspector was examined and that
the passenger was not examined. It held that the onus was therefore on the appellant to prove the charges. Thereafter, the first Respondent Labour
Court analyzed the evidence placed before it and took the view that the evidence let in, that for the trip undertaken by the passenger between
Anupanadi to Niyalur, tickets had been duly issued by the second Respondent Conductor at the time when the checking was made, and therefore,
it was the presumption of the Checking Inspectors that such issuance of tickets without proper punching might have been because of the intention
of the second respondent to indulge in dishonest activity, for reissuing the tickets on the return trip. The first Respondent Labour Court after
analyzing the evidence, reached a conclusion that there was no acceptable evidence to conclude that the second respondent punched the tickets
after the Checking Inspectors entered the vehicle. The second respondent Labour Court, has held that under Standing Order 16(5), an employee
can be proceeded against only if dishonesty is proved"" and based on mere suspicion that he intended to behave in a dishonest manner, no action
could have been initiated against the second Respondent.
We have perused the award of the Labour Court in detail and we find that the first Respondent Labour Court has made a detailed analysis of
the evidence placed before it, before reaching the above conclusion. The reasoning of the first Respondent Labour Court is also cogent and
convincing and we do not find any scope to take a different view from the said conclusions. Moreover, we do not find any perversity in any of its
conclusions : while analyzing the evidence, or in appreciating the said evidence for reaching the above said conclusions. Under such circumstances
we affirm the award of the first respondent Labour Court in holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified, is
perfectly in order and we do not find any scope to interfere with the same. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge in confirming the
said award cannot also be interfered with.
Insofar as W.A. No. 3100/2001 is concerned, the said writ appeal arises out of the award dated 24.08.1992 passed in I.D. No. 638/1989
which award came to be confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14585/1993. Here again, the second Respondent was a conductor.
The issues relates to his non-employment.
According to the appellant on 14.01.1988, when the second respondent was working as a conductor in the Corporation Transport bus bearing
registration No. TML 6475 plying between Azhagarkoil to Periyar Bus Stand, at about 6.22 p.m., when the vehicle was checked by the Checking
Inspectors at Sundarajanpati, there were 35 passengers in the vehicle, that when they checked the tickets available with the passengers, they found
that ticket numbers A.3/37195 to 37200 and 44781 to 44705 viz. 11 tickets were already issued tickets between Periyar Bus Stand and Azhagar
Koil, which were reissued to the passengers, who were North Indians. Based on the above allegations, the second respondent was issued with a
charge memo dated 5.4.1988 and after holding an enquiry and after issuance of second Show Cause Notice, he was dismissed from service by
order dated 27.4.1989. The issue went up for adjudication before the first Respondent Labour Court as I.D. No. 638/1989.
The first Respondent Labour Court raised three issues for adjudication viz., whether the inquiry held against the second respondent was fair and
proper; whether the non-employment was justified and to what relief he was entitled to ?"".
As far as the fairness of the Inquiry is concerned, the first Respondent Labour Court held that there was no fault in the Inquiry. Thereafter, it
went into the merits of the misconduct levelled against the second Respondent. In paragraph 5 of its order, the first Respondent Labour Court has
analyzed the evidence in detail. In that context, what is relevant is reference to Ex.M-13, the invoice maintained by the second Respondent which
was periodically checked with particular reference to the entries contained therein by the Time Office of the appellant, at the destination at Periyar
Bus Stand. Sum and substance of the charge against the second Respondent was that while undertaking the trip between Periyar Bus stand and
Azhagar Koil, 11 tickets bearing numbers A.3/37195 to 37200 and 44781 to 44705, denomination of Rs. 1.45/- per ticket were issued by him,
that when the other passengers undertook their trip from Azhagar Koil to Periyar Bus Stand, the second respondent reissued the very same tickets
and thereby, he attempted to make an unlawful gain, which if proved, would amount to dishonest activity, falling under Standing Orders 16.5.
The first Respondent Labour Court after referring to Ex.M-13 - Trip Sheet maintained by the second Respondent found that the starting
number noted by the Time Office Clerk of the Periyar Bus Stand insofar as the ticket Book A.3 with Nos. 37195 to 37200 was concerned, the
last entry was 37171. Whenever an entry is made by the Time Office Clerk, admittedly, the same is made in Red Ink. Entry 37171 has been
entered in Red Ink in Ex.M-13. Therefore, any ticket which has been issued for the trip between Periyar Bus Stand and Azhagar Koil would have
been only after 37171 onwards. In the very same Ex.M-13, the last ticket number which was ready for issue for the trip from Azhagar Koil has
been noted as 37195. Since the denomination Rs. 1.45/- could have been issued only for the through ticket from Periyar Bus Stand and Azhagar
Koil; and Azhagar Koil and Periyar Bus Stand and when the last ticket available at the point Azhagar Koil was noted as 37195, the first
respondent Labour Court reached the conclusion that there was no scope for the second respondent to have issued any used tickets during the trip
Azhagar Koil and Periyar Bus Stand when he took the trip at 6.25 p.m.
The only other flaw found in the said tickets was that those tickets were punched on the ''Upside'' and while the trip was ''down one'' between
Azhagar Koil and Periyar Bus Stand. For the said discrepancy, explanation of the second respondent was that that particular day was Pongal
Festival day and since there was unprecedented rush of passengers, he might have made a wrong punch in the tickets. The first Respondent
Labour Court accepted the said explanation offered by the second Respondent, since it has found that there was no scope for the second
Respondent to have issued the tickets by way of re-issue.
We have also perused the award of the first respondent Labour Court and on a perusal of the same, we find that the reasoning of the first
respondent Labour Court is quite convincing and there is no scope to take a different view. More over, the analysis made by the first respondent
to the various documents placed before it in reaching the said conclusion is also quite possible and we do not find any perversity in its conclusion.
More over, for the wrong punch made by the second Respondent in the tickets issued, in the opinion of the first respondent Labour Court, a
punishment was called for and therefore, while directing reinstatement of the second respondent, the first Respondent Labour Court held that
deprivation of 50% of the back wages will meet the ends of justice. Thus, the first respondent Labour Court having applied its mind in every
respect while analyzing the evidence while reaching the conclusion about the proof of misconduct levelled against the second Respondent, we do
not find any scope to interfere with the same in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the said award. For the very same reason, we do not
find any scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and we confirm the said award of the first Respondent Labour Court. For all
the above said reasons, we do not find any merits in the appeals and the writ appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
It is stated that pursuant to interim orders of this Court, the appellant was directed to deposit the backwages to the credit of the respective
awards and that the same are kept in deposit by the first Respondent Labour Court. Having regard to our decision to dismiss the appeals, we
direct the first respondent Labour Court to permit the respective second respondents to withdraw the back wages deposited with it, in the
respective disputes, with accrued interest, if any, on production of a copy of this order.