BADEALI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in these matters, the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed off by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners are challenging the common award passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No.10/2012, 11/2012, 12/2012, 13/2012, 14/2012, 24/2012, 25/2012, 27/2012, 28/2012, 30/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012 and 39/2012 dated 25.09.2012.

(3.) Facts in brief are, the petitioners were appointed as driver-cum-conductors and conductors in the respondent- corporation. The petitioners were served with charge sheets alleging that they had misused the Electronic Ticket Machine (ET machine) manipulated 46,157 tickets and misappropriated an amount of Rs.98,00,000/- a consolidated amount in total to the corporation illegally in collusion with Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operators and other staff members. The petitioners furnished reply to the charge sheet denying the charges leveled against them, the respondent not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioners initiated the departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his findings to the respondent, stating that the charges leveled against the petitioners are proved. The respondent based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the petitioners from service. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). It was contended by the petitioners that a false report was made by the reporter against the petitioners indeed, the petitioners after completing the duty as per procedure handed over the ET machines to the depot manager, who had checked the revenue collection of that schedule and made entry in the register kept in the depot and verified that the collections were up to mark or not and thereafter the Assistant Traffic Supervisor (ATS) had taken the collection report from ET machines and made endorsement on the waybill and subsequently, Audit Clerk had audited the collection report and then the cashier had taken the cash. Hence, question of manipulating and misappropriating the revenue dues do not arise at all. The respondents filed their detailed objection statements to the claim petitions denying the averments made in the claim petitions.