MUSTAQ AHAMMED ABDULAZIZ CHANNAPATTAN Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/workman was a conductor of the respondent/Management. The petitioner was conducting a bus bearing No.KA-25/F-477, on 27.02.2000, plying on route from CBT, Dharwad-- Stage No.1 to Navalur--Stage No.4. The bus was subjected to inspection by the line checking squad at Yallakkishettar Colony and it was found that, eight ticketless passengers were travelling from CBT, Dharwad to Navalur, though the petitioner had collected requisite fare of Rs.2.50 each, ha d failed to issue tickets to the said passengers. After completing the process of check, the checking squad submitted a report. The disciplinary authority issued articles of charge (Ex.M-7) to which the petitioner submitted a reply (Ex.M-8). A disciplinary enquiry ordered, was conducted, wherein, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge leveled against him. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished along with a show-cause notice to the petitioner. He was also notified by a separate show-cause notice that, he had involved earlier, in 27 other default cases, in respect of which minor punishments had been imposed on him, to improve himself, but there was no improvement. Considering the reply submitted, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 22.05.2001, of dismissal from service.

(2.) A claim petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short 'the Act'] in the Labour Court, Hubli. The same was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (for short 'the by a Tribunal') Government Order dated 17.09.2003.

(3.) SRI .Suresh P.Hudedgaddi, learned advocate for the petitioner, firstly, contended that the Management has failed to prove the charge of misconduct leveled against the petitioner and that the finding of guilt recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and illegal. Secondly, the punishment imposed is disproportionate and harsh and that the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the punishment imposed in exercise of power conferred under Section 11A of the Act. Learned advocate submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference with the impugned award is warranted.