THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC Vs. BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a conductor in the year 1993. While he was discharging his duty as a conductor on 12.11.1999 on the route Sedam to Chincholi the bus was stopped for checking. It was found that the workman has not issued tickets to some passengers. Hence, an article of charge was issued. An enquiry was held. He participated in the same. He was dismissed from the service. A reference was made by the Government before the Labour Court under Section 10 (1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned award the dismissal order was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without back wages within two months from the date of award. Aggrieved by the same, the corporation has filed the present petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on holding an enquiry the workman was dismissed from service. The Labour Court without any valid reason has reversed the said finding. Substantial evidence was let in to prove the guilt of the workman. The same was disbelieved by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on appreciating the evidence held at para-9 that the workman had not collected the fare amount from the passengers therein and not closed the way bill even before reaching the stage point. Therefore it held the management has proved the alleged misconduct against the workman.

(3.) On considering the quantum of punishment the Labour Court assigned the reason at para-10 by holding that however there are 22 past history cases of default against the workman and punishment have been imposed against him it does not appear that they are in very much larger. The 22 past cases were he has received punishment was considered by the Labour Court in para-10 by holding as follows:-