DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICES Vs. SRI. GANGAYYA MRUTYUNJAYA HIREMATH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the respondent was working as a conductor with the petitioner corporation, bus was checked. He was found to have issued unpunched tickets to the passengers, which were not entered in the way bill. The statement of the passengers were recorded. The unpunched tickets were taken and thereafter an articles of charge was issued. He submits his reply. Being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was conducted. The charges were held to be proved. He was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an application under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court wherein by the impugned order, the order of dismissal was set aside and he was held entitled for backwages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits from the date of the order till the date of his death, that is between 13 -8 -2004 to 17 -6 -2006 and other reliefs. Questioning the same, the respondent -Corporation has filed the present petition. Heard learned counsels.

(2.) THE Labour Court was of the view that mere non -punching of tickets and non -making of entry in the way bill does not amount to misconduct. That there will be no lawful loss to the Corporation or lawful gain to the conductor. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any mala fide intention by the conductor. The material collected was considered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court was of the view that he is entitled for reinstatement along with backwages. On considering the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition. Firstly there is a detailed reasoning assigned by the Labour Court. The contentions advanced have been taken into account. The Labour Court was of the view that even though the charges have not been established against the workman, since the workman died during the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, the relief granted to him was only between the date of dismissal and date of death, namely for a period less than two years. In my considered view, the order of the Labour Court is just and proper and in tune with the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be said that the order is unsustainable. The workman has since died. Justice should also be tempered with equity. The relief that he would get in terms of the order is paltry. Under these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. It is needless to state that the petitioner corporation are required to settled the payments due to the respondent in terms of the impugned order. The same shall be done within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.