AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
This writ petition arises out of an award dated 15.3.2000 passed by the labour court, U.P., Agra in adjudication case No. 57/2000.
Respondent No. 1 - workman was appointed as conductor in petitioner corporation. On 3.6.1995 duty of the workman concerned was on bus No. UME 967, Fatehpur Sikri to Agra. At about 10 A.M. the said bus was checked by the checking staff at Orai and it was found that 64 passengers were travelling in the bus who had been issued tickets but complete entries had not been made in the way bill. It was also found that tough the workman had issued 14 tickets to the passenger but original of 29 tickets issued by the petitioner were not with the passengers. On enquiry, the workman told the checking staff that he had inadvertently dropped or had left the same in a beetal shop where the bus had stopped for taking passengers and that he will deposit original of 29 tickets also. The workman later on also submitted the originals of the tickets issued by him.
An enquiry was initiated by the department on suspicion that writing/impression on the originals did not tally with the impression on the tickets issued to the passengers by the petitioner, hence he was charged that had the matter not came to light in checking, the workman concerned could have embezzled the fare by making original tickets for shorter distance and pocketing the difference of amount paid by the passengers for their tickets.
In the enquiry, the respondent workman was found guilty of the charges and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to him alongwith the enquiry report. After receipt of the reply from the workman, order of removal from service was passed by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Agra. A representation also appears to have been filed by the workman which was rejected by the General Manager. Revision preferred by the workman was too rejected. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination from service as well as on the quantum of punishment.
The aforesaid dispute was referred to the labour court where a preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was framed. The labour court decided the issue holding that domestic enquiry held by the employers was fair and proper and thereafter by the impugned award dated 15.3.2000 the labour court has awarded to the workman reinstatement in service with 25% of back wages. It is this award which is under challenge before this Court by the employer UPSRTC.
Case of the employers before the labour court was based on suspicion. Search of workman''s pocket was also made but neither any extra money nor original tickets were found on his person or in the bus. Hence statement of the workman that book containing original tickets inadvertently appears to have been left at the beetal shop, appears to be correct in absence of any other evidence on this point by the employer.
The labour court on the basis of evidence oral and documentary on record as well as the pleadings, has come to the conclusion that out of 15 entries to be made on the way bill, all entries were made except two and that charge sheet issued to him was based on suspicion only. The workman had also deposited the original tickets, therefore, the employers had failed to prove charges against the workman and he is entitled for reinstatement as termination of his services on the basis of suspicion is too harsh.
The labour court has further found that charges of irresponsible behaviour are proved as according to the workman himself he had left the tickets at the beetal shop or had dropped them, therefore, he is entitled to 25% of back wages only.
In my opinion, the labour court has rightly came to the conclusion Won the basis of oral and documentary evidence that punishment of termination of service on the basis of suspicion is too harsh. In fact no case of suspicion was made out before the labour court but as regards awarding of 25 % of back wages is concerned, it has been awarded by the labour court on the ground that charge of being irresponsible on duty is proved.
The workman also has been reinstated in service pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2001 by which the High Court had stayed back wages.
Considering facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that a government servant is required to take care of the government property as he would take care of his own property and that charge of irresponsibility has been found to be proved, in the opinion of this Court, awarding of back wages to the workman concerned for a charged misconduct which may have serious financial implication for loss of tickets, was not required.
For all the reasons stated above, this petition is partly allowed. As the workman has already been reinstated and charge for termination having not been proved by the employer before the labour court, no interference is required by this Court so that as that part is concerned. As regards acting irresponsibly in dropping tickets and way bills, the labour court has found that charge to be proved, hence the workman is not entitled to 25 % of back wages. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.