N S PATELAPPA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the award in I. D. No. 1/99 dated 30. 3. 2001.

(2.) THE petitioner is an employee of respondent-Corporation. He was issued with a charge sheet on 26. 11. 1998. In the charge sheet it is stated that the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-F-143 is plying in route No. 286/1 from Jakkur to city market. The vehicle came to be checked by the Checking squad at Hebbal stage, point No. 4. An offence memo was issued stating that out of 55 passengers travelling in the bus, the petitioner failed to issue tickets to 10 passengers travelling from Byatarayanapura to Hebbal, despite collection of requisite charges from each one of the passengers at the boarding place itself. The penalty was imposed by the Corporation. The actual amount was collected by the Inspector from the Conductor. The petitioner-Conductor thereafter paid the penalty collection amount from the passenger. Later an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer based on the materials placed before him, found the petitioner guilty. The Corporation accepting the report terminated the service of the petitioner resulting in the petitioner filing a petition under section 104 (A) of the ID Act before the Labour Court, Bangalore, (for short Act) in ID No. 1/99. The said petition was contested. Evidence was recorded. The Labour Court upheld the enquiry and passed an award dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. It is this award that is challenged before me.

(3.) MR. Hanumantha Raya, learned Counsel has raised several contentions in respect of his prayer. According to him, his client has not committed any mis-conduct what so ever. He also attacks the findings as perverse in the sense that the findings are not based on evidence. He further contends that the penalty imposed is harsh. He invites my attention to the evidence on record. After hearing the counsel at great length, I have perused the impugned award.