BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE BY ITS CHIRP TRAFFIC MANAGER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. BASAVA RAJAIAH ADULT C/O GENERAL SECRETARY KSRTC AND BMTC UNTIED EMPLYEES UNION NO. 23, 4TH MAIN ROAD MATHIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANGALORE Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation" for brevity) is calling in question the order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No. 10/2007 dated 30.6.2010 Annexure -H, whereunder punishment imposed on the respondent -workman by the Disciplinary Authority withholding two increments with cumulative effect has been modified by levying penalty of Rs. 1000/ -. Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order as well as Annexures filed along with writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT -workman was employed as conductor in the establishment of petitioner -Corporation and while on duty on 6.9.2003 in Route No. 104/11, the way bill No. 0375799 pertaining to the said day was examined and found that respondent had altered the way bill in respect of Trip Nos.8 and 9 and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 35/ -. On this ground, articles of charge was issued and same came to be denied by workman. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and after conducting enquiry, a report was given by the Enquiry Officer dated 15.9.2004 Annexure -C holding that the charges levelled against the respondent was proved. After issuing 2nd show cause notice to workman, Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass an order of punishment whereunder workman was imposed with a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It is this order, which was called in question by the workman before the Labour Court in I. D.No. 10/2007. Labour Court held that Disciplinary Authority has dealt with the matter in proper perspective and concluded that the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority does not call for interference, but found that punishment imposed is on the higher side and reduced the same by ordering payment of fine of Rs. 1000/ - in lieu of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, It is this order, which is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) PERUSAL of the enquiry report at Annexure -C would go to show that the charges levelled against the respondent was proved and Disciplinary Authority on examination of enquiry report as well as reply given by the delinquent employee to the 2nd stow cause notice, had imposed punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Taking into consideration the past conduct of the employee as also the age of the respondent into consideration, the Labour Court accepted the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and arrived at a conclusion that reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the punishment does not call for interference. However, curiously it interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Act. The exercise of power under Section 11A of I.D. Act by the Labour Courts with regard to interference with quantum of punishment is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2208 has held as follows : - '16. The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside, If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of intimidation or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed Section 11 -A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment Section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11 -A in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmens this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgement for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, etc, on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimization, etc in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11 -A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen V. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd When enquiry was conducted fatly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since section 11 -A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, there is a dear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were compiled with while conducting enquiry. 5. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, power of Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act being restricted to the punishment of dismissal or discharge, it could not have interfered with minor punishment imposed particularly when findings of Disciplinary Authority having been accepted. In that view of the matter, the interference by the Labour Court with regard to quantum of punishment in the instant case is not only contrary to its own reasonings but also against law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the order of the Labour Court dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure -H) cannot be sustained and following order is passed: - a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Order of the Labour Court, Bangalore passed in I.D.No. 10/2007 dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure -H) is hereby set aside c) The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.5.2006 in No. BMTC/DIS/D8/9121/7312 is hereby confirmed. d) No order as to costs.