SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order of removal from service dated 24.06.1987, passed by the respondent DTC; the order dated 25.08.1995, and; the final Award dated 06.05.1988 passed by the Labour Court IX in old I.D. No. 623/88 and new I.D. No. 586/94. By the order dated 24.06.1987, the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent DTC with immediate effect. By the order dated 25.08.1995, the preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the respondent against the petitioner was decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner holding the enquiry to have been properly held in compliance with the principles of natural justice. By the final Award dated 06.05.1988, the reference made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on 16.09.1988 with regard to the removal of the petitioner from service has been answered in favour of the respondent, and against the petitioner workman.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by the respondent DTC in 1979. On 18.11.1985, the checking staff of the DTC found the petitioner to have not issued the ticket to a lady passenger of 30 paise after pocketing the said amount. On checking his cash, he was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 1.90/-. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on 22.10.1985 (Ex.A) in his own handwriting and bearing his signatures wherein he admitted his guilt. The respondent then held a domestic enquiry against the petitioner wherein the statements of several witnesses produced by the Management were recorded and opportunity to cross-examine them was given to the petitioner. On the preparation of the domestic enquiry report, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to make his representation. After considering the same, the respondent/employer passed the order dated 24.06.1987 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Since the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in respect thereof, the same was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court which has rendered its Award as aforesaid.

(3.) While passing the order dated 25.08.1995 on the preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court examined the petitioners plea that he had withdrawn his handwritten and signed statement dated 22.10.1985 vide letter dated Ex. B, wherein the petitioner had claimed that Ex.A had been written under coercion and at the dictates of the checking staff. The Labour Court observes that the petitioner in his statement made before the Court on 24.08.1995 had admitted his handwritten and signed statement Ex. A dated 22.10.1985. In this document, he admitted that on 22.10.1985 while he was on duty as a conductor, he has taken 30 paise from a lady passenger but did not give her ticket. He admitted his guilt and prayed to be excused. This constitutes his admission of his guilt. In respect of Ex. B the letter of retraction, the Labour Court observed that no such objection had been taken in the reply filed by the petitioner workman to the charge-sheet issued to him. Further, witness Gyan Chand, Supervisor, in his testimony stated that when the conductor was confronted with the lady passenger, he had admitted that he taken the money. The witness Hari Chand similarly stated that the conductor had admitted his guilt in writing. Similarly, Amar Nath, ATI also stated that the conductor had admitted his guilt in writing. The Labour Court observed that these witnesses were cross-examined by the workman but the deposition of these witnesses to the effect that the workman concerned had admitted his guilt was never challenged. It was also not put to these witnesses that the said admission was obtained under coercion or at the dictates of the checking staff comprising of these witnesses. The Labour Court held that the plea of coercion appeared to be an afterthought and, consequently, the same was rejected.