MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent - workman, who was working as Conductor, was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charge of not issuing tickets to 9 passengers despite collection of fare from them and thereafter, he was dismissed from service. So, he approached the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute. The Labour Court held that said charge is not proved, but found violation of issue and start rule and consequently, set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement with 25% back wages. Aggrieved by it, the appellant - Corporation filed Writ Petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge affirmed said finding and maintained the order of reinstatement but refused entire back wages. Hence, this intra Court appeal by the appellant - Corporation.

(2.) IT is vehemently argued for the appellant Corporation that charge of pilferage is proved by the evidence adduced, but the Labour Court has wrongly held it as not proved, and similarly, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider it and wrongly affirmed the finding recorded by the Labour Court. On the other hand, it is submitted for the respondent workman that as the Corporation did not examine any witness after the domestic enquiry held to be not fair, the labour Court was not correct in considering the documents not proved in accordance with law, and hence, the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that 9 ticket-less passengers were found traveling in the bus itself cannot be maintained and even other wise, said documents cannot establish the charge when no witness has been examined to prove them.

(3.) AT the outset, it may be noted that, the respondent - conductor himself admitted that there were 9 ticket-less passengers in the bus conducted by him, when it was checked. So, no evidence much less any proof was required to hold that respondent - workman had violated issue and start rule, which the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge held as proved.