JUMABHAI OSMANBHAI HINGORA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who was at the relevant time serving as a conductor, has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.224/2006, by which the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.

(2.) The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nut-shell are as follows: Petitioner was serving as a conductor and was on duty on 27.11.1986 under the Junagadh Depot. That there was a raid by the checking squad and the petitioner conductor deliberately did not open the door for quite some time and thereby delayed the opening of the door and in the meantime issued six tickets to the passengers from whom earlier the fare was recovered but the tickets were not issued. That all those six passengers from whom the fare was recovered but the tickets were not issued, were Bank Officers serving at Kalavad and statement of one of the passenger Bank employee was recorded at the relevant time and he gave the statement that in fact the petitioner conductor recovered the fare from six passengers and did not issue tickets, however, on the raid by the checking squad, when the bus was directed to be stopped, he deliberately delayed in opening the door and in the meantime hurriedly issued tickets to those passengers. That thereafter, departmental inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner. It appears that before the inquiry officer and in departmental inquiry, petitioner examined the aforesaid passenger who gave the statement against the petitioner. However, for whatever reason, he made a statement contrary to the statement made by him earlier and he turned around and it appears that he was won over by the petitioner, who was examined him as his witness before the inquiry officer. However, on appreciation of evidence and other surrounding circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. It appears that thereafter petitioner instead of raising industrial dispute filed a suit before the Civil Court, obtained injunction and pursuant to the order passed below Exh.5, he was continued in service and thereafter, the learned trial Court decreed the suit against which the respondent S.T. Corporation preferred Appeal before the District Court and the learned District Judge, Rajkot allowed the said Appeal by holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. However, in view of the fact that an Appeal was maintainable, delegated the petitioner to prefer Appeal which was subsequently preferred by the petitioner. During the pendency of of the said Appeal, petitioner raised industrial dispute against the order of dismissal which was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot, which was numbered as Reference (LCR) No.224/2006 and the Labour Court by impugned judgment and award dated 12.04.2010 dismissed the said reference. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in dismissing the said reference, petitioner conductor has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Gogia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that Labour Court has materially erred in dismissing the reference. It is submitted that as such there was no evidence against the petitioner with respect to the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he did not issue tickets to six passengers though the fare was collected. It is submitted that the finding given by the inquiry officer was on presumption and it is based on no evidence and therefore, Labour Court ought to have allowed the reference by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal of passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is based on no evidence. It is further submitted that as such the passenger who gave the statement against the petitioner had deposed before the Disciplinary Authority / inquiry officer and he denied that the petitioner collected the fare and did not issue tickets and that he issued the tickets hurriedly at the time of raid by the checking squad. It is submitted that he has made specific statement before the inquiry officer that in fact they boarded in the bus from Khandera and the tickets were issued from the very beginning. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the above. It is further submitted that even the Labour Court has not properly appreciated that as the passengers were not giving the statements as per the Officers of the checking squad, therefore, the bus was taken to the police station and the said passengers were compelled to sign the statements by force. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has materially erred in not considering and/or relying upon the default card and the past defaults committed by the petitioner as the same was not part of the show-cause notice. In the alternative, Shri Gogia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner continued to be in service upto 2006 pursuant to the interim injunction granted by the learned Civil Court, he has requested to impose some lesser punishment so that petitioner can get all consequential benefits of his service upto year 2006.