RAMESH CHAND Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge as also the award passed by the Labour Court, Delhi.

(2.) The appellant herein was working as a conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation. While he was working as such he was served with a charge sheet dated 15.5.1991 on the allegation that the appellant was not issuing tickets to the passengers and also misbehaving with the checking staff. Departmental enquiry was held and on completion thereof the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of 'removal from service' the appellant raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the following terms:-

(3.) The learned Labour Court received the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter passed an award holding that neither the removal of the workman from service is illegal nor unjustified and that he is not entitled for any relief. In the award, the learned Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the appellant was just and proper and the same was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Labour Court would also indicate that what was argued before the learned Labour Court was regarding the quantum of the punishment awarded to the appellant/workman. After appreciating the records, the learned Labour Court has held that the allegation of misappropriation of Government money and misbehaviour with the checking staff has been proved and, therefore, the punishment awarded is justified. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Labour Court also referred to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Committee Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishan Behrai and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 714 wherein the Supreme Court has urged that even if the amount misappropriated is small, the act of misappropriation is relevant and hence, the order of dismissal was justified. To the similar effect was the decision of the Supreme Court in Tika Ram and Sons Ltd. vs. Their Workman (1960) 1 LLJ 524 (SC). In the said decision the Supreme Court held that act of dishonesty or fraud would constitute misconduct of serious nature warranting punishment of dismissal. There is another case decided by the Supreme Court titled as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Basudev Chaudhary and Another, (1997) 11 SCC 370 wherein the Supreme Court has upheld removal of a Conductor from service on the ground that the misconduct was an attempt to cause loss of Rs.65/- to the corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs.2.35 but recovering higher amounts. The Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that the Corporation's action of framing charge sheet and removing the conductor from service was bad and that the punishment was disproportionate. After taking notice of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned Labour Court held that no interference is called for in respect of the punishment awarded to the appellant.