The Divisional Controller NEKRTC vs Ladle Sab

B.S. Patil

In this writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation is challenging the legality and the correctness of the award dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur directing re-instatement of the respondent-employee into service with backwages and other consequential benefits. Petitioner is the State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent being an employee of the petitioner-Corporation was working as a conductor in the bus bearing registration No. F-869 on the route Panaji to Basavana Bagewadi. It was alleged against the respondent that on 05.07.2010, when the Checking Squad checked the bus, it was found that the respondent-conductor had failed to collect Rs. 119/- from a child passenger and had not issued ticket to the said passenger. It was also alleged that during the course of inspection, the respondent refused to sign the offence memo and did not co-operate with the Checking Squad.

Based on the report submitted by the Checking Squad, the Disciplinary Authority framed charges against the respondent with regard to the misconduct as alleged herein above. An enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found that the first charge regarding non-collection of fare from the child passenger had not been proved, inasmuch as the child passenger being below five years, the conductor was not required to collect the fare from the child. As regards the other charge pertaining to non-co-operation of the conductor with the Checking Squad and his misbehavior with them, the Enquiry Officer found that the said charge had been proved.

The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal of the employee from service vide his Order dated 05.09.2011. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bijapur in KID No. 64/2011.

The Labour Court vide Order dated 07.01.2012 found that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner/respondent herein was not just and proper and accordingly answered the said issue which was raised as a preliminary issue. It is for this, reason, the petitioner-Corporation led evidence by examining one more witness and the respondent-employee also examined himself before the Labour Court. After considering the entire material on record, the Labour Court found that the Enquiry Officer rightly held that the child passenger who was travelling in the bus was below the age of five years and therefore, the conductor was justified in not issuing the ticket and in not collecting the fare from the said passenger.

Insofar as the misconduct pertaining to non-co-operation with the Checking Squad and the misbehavior with the Checking Squad, the Labour Court has examined the entire materials on record and after appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary produced before it, has come to the conclusion that the address and the particulars of the passenger who had allegedly paid the penalty was not forthcoming and the statement of the passenger and the co-passengers with respect to the alleged misbehavior of the claimant towards the Checking Squad was also not forthcoming and the Enquiry Officer had failed to appreciate the same while submitting his report:. The Labour Court has further found that except the version of the reporting officer, there was no material in the form of evidence of any other witnesses before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court to prove that the respondent-employee had misbehaved with the Checking Inspector and had loudly spoken at the time of inspection of the bus by the Checking Squad.

It has to be noticed here that when the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that non-collection of fare from the child passenger and non-issue of ticket to her did not amount to a misconduct having regard to the age of the child, which was below five years, the second charge which was a consequential one pertaining to the Checking Inspector asking the conductor to sign the penalty receipt and receive the offence memo, at which point of time, the conductor failed to co-operate with the Checking Squad and misbehaved by speaking in loud voice, cannot be made a basis for imposing the penalty, let alone the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Once the first charge is held not proved, there was no justification for the Enquiry Officer to record a finding in the affirmative with regard to the second charge, that too without any cogent evidence before him.

The Labour Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire materials and by referring to the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the second charge was also not proved. As a result, the Labour Court has very rightly persuaded itself to set aside the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the employee along with all consequential benefits including backwages. It has to be observed, at this stage, that the extreme action taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss the employee from service, even when the Enquiry Officer found that the first charge was not proved, was totally arbitrary and it is for this reason, the Labour Court has rightly directed reinstatement with full backwages. The employee cannot be deprived of the consequential benefits including backwages in such circumstance. Even otherwise, the period for which the employee was out of service was only about one year and therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter for reducing the quantum of backwages awarded. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.