ASWATHNARAYANACHARI Vs. CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, BMTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition No. 16111/2008 is preferred by the Conductor, while writ petition No. 22530/2009 is preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for short 'the Corporation'], calling in question the Award dated 22.7.2008 in I.D. No. 48/2001 of the III Additional Labour Court Bangalore, insofar as it relates to non entitlement to back wages to the Conductor and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 6.2.2001 and directing payment of monetary benefits to the workman with continuity of service upto the date of superannuation with consequential benefits, respectively. The Conductor while discharging duties during the period from January 1998 to 10.8.1998, [for short 'relevant period'], was found to have made interpolations over the entries of the numbers of the luggage tickets in the column provided in die conductor's Way Bill Abstract [for short 'CWBA'], on 48 occasions. The Corporation, alleging that such alternations had resulted in misappropriation of traffic revenue of Rs. 2,460/ -, initiated disciplinary proceedings, whence ample opportunity of hearing was extended to the conductor and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the workman - conductor guilty of the charges and by order dated 6.2.2001, dismissed the conductor from service.

(2.) THE workman filed a petition u/s. 10[4 -A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, registered as I.D. No. 48/2001 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, calling in question, the order of dismissal, which was opposed by filing counter statement of the Corporation, arraigned as second party, inter alia, denying the assertions in the claim petition and contending that the workman was guilty of misappropriation of traffic revenue due to alteration of the ticket numbers in the CWBA on 48 occasions.

(3.) ON remand, the Labour Court, having extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and on a re -appreciation of the material on record i.e., evidence both oral and documentary, marshaled in the enquiry by the Corporation, observed that one Mallikarjuna the Reporting Officer, who submitted a report - Ex. M4 when examined, stated that on 48 occasions, the workman had made alterations in the CWBA in respect of luggage tickets while in the cross examination, admitted to the fact that in the Corporation there was no practice of checking CWBAs' submitted by Conductors on a regular basis and that they would be subjected to an audit, in addition to the fact that the concerned section did neither verify the luggage tickets in view of shortage of employees nor indicate the latches in the alterations in the CWBAs' though the conductor was orally informed of the same. That witness further admitted that the luggage tickets were in possession of the relevant/concerned section in the Corporation since 3.1.1998 and that the tickets would not be kept in the cupboards which are not locked, while there was no prohibition for anybody to enter the room and that his testimony was based upon records.