Regional Manager,Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Mohan Chandra Joshi

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner Corporation is assailing the Award dated 7.10.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar, whereby order passed by the employer/petitioner, herein, dated 23.10.1999 for recovery of Rs. 57,516.70 from the salary of the workman as well as from the gratuity of the workman was set aside. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that workman/respondent, herein, was driving Bus bearing Registration No. UP 02 - 8767 on 29.12.1994. Bus being driven by respondent/workman met with an accident with Jeep No. UP 03 - 1070. Workman was challenged for rash and negligent driving by the police. Learned MACT, vide judgment dated 17.7.1999, was pleased to hold that for the accident in question, driver of the bus as well as driver of the jeep both were responsible since accident took place because of their contributory negligence, and awarded Rs. 85,000 alongwith 8 per cent interest as compensation with the direction that half of the compensation amount would be paid by the petitioner Corporation and half of the amount 2 of compensation would be paid by the driver of the jeep UP 03-1070.

Under the orders of the learned MACT dated 17.7.1999, employer-Corporation/petitioner had to pay Rs. 57,516.70. Thereafter, Corporation/employer issued one show-cause notice to the workman-driver/respondent, herein, to the effect as to why same may not be recovered from the workman/respondent, herein. Thereafter, impugned order was passed by the Corporation for recovery of the amount of Rs. 57,516.70 from the salary and gratuity of the driver-workman/respondent, herein. Feeling aggrieved, workman/respondent, herein, raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court.

Learned Labour Court, vide impugned Award dated 7.10.2011, held that since neither any chargesheet was issued to the driver for his alleged negligence nor any departmental enquiry was held nor he was held guilty for the negligent driving by enquiry officer, therefore, recovery of amount paid under the order of MACT was totally illegal. It was further held by the Tribunal that since the workman had already been acquitted by the criminal court in view of the fact that he was not proved to be negligent in driving, therefore, recovery from the workman/driver was not justified. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Award, I do not find any justification, or good reason to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Tribunal. No employee/workman should be punished without issuing show cause notice and without any departmental enquiry. Issuance of simple show cause notice and passing the penalty order is nothing except an eyewash. Therefore, issuance of the show cause notice cannot be equated with the departmental proceedings. Moreover, since workman had already been acquitted by the criminal court not finding him guilty for rash and negligent driving, therefore, imposition of j penalty by the employer/petitioner, herein, was totally arbitrary and uncalled for. Therefore, impugned Award does not require any interference. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

CLMA No. 7689 of 2012 also stands disposed of accordingly.