State of Punjab vs Harpal Singh Ex-Conductor and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition was filed challenging the award of the Labour Court on 22.1.1981.

The first respondent was employed as a conductor in Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana. His services were terminated by an order dated 5.7.1979 after holding an enquiry on the charge that the first respondent did not issue tickets to 3 passengers and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 8.10 paise to Punjab Roadways. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for ad judication. The Labour Court on the basis of the material placed before it, found that the enquiry is fair and proper, but came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the first respondent and denied back wages to him as the Labour Court was of the opinion that the denial of back-wages would be sufficient punishment for the lapse on the part of the first respondent.

I have gone through the record. The only allegation against the workman that he did not issue tickets to only 3 passengers which resulted in a loss of Rs. 8.10 paise to the Punjab Roadways.

There is no averment that the workmen was in the habit of collecting the fares from the passengers and not issue tickets to them. As amount involved is merely Rs. 8.10 paise, the Labour Court found that the supreme penalty of removal from service is disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.

I do not see any reason to differ with the reasoning of the Labour Court. It is settled law that the Labour Court can certainly go into the question whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportion to the charge. On the consideration of the material placed before it, the Labour Court in my opinion, had rightly came to the conclusion that the punishment is disproportionate and that with holding of the backwages is sufficient punishment to the workman for the lapse. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the award of the Labour Court. Writ Petition, therefore, fails and dismissed without costs.