RIYAZKHAN GULAMRASUL KHAN YUSUFJAY Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for Petitioner workman. Petitioner Riyazkhan Gulamrasulkhan Yusufjay being Conductor, has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 17/2008 Exhibit 42 where Labour Court has dismissed reference by award Exhibit 42 in September, 2009.

(2.) Before labour Court, contention was raised by advocate for workman that against conductor, no evidence except reporter, who was examined in departmental inquiry and concerned passengers were not examined in departmental inquiry and finding which was given by inquiry officer is baseless and perverse and punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Before labour Court, reliance was placed by advocate for Petitioner upon decision in case of GSRTC v. State Transport Karmachari Union, 2002 2 GLH 695 2002 IV LLJ 1325 (NOC) while submitting that the punishment imposed upon workman is harsh, unjust and disproportionate which require interference of labour Court in exercise of powers under 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Labour Court has considered written arguments submitted by ST Corporation where it was submitted specifically that the charge of dishonesty and misappropriation is found to be proved against workman, in past 10 defaults were committed though opportunity was given to him to improve but conduct of conductor has not been improved and, therefore, punishment of dismissal has been properly passed by corporation wherein no interference is required. Labour Court has considered purshis Exhibit 11 given by workman for considering his case for reduction of punishment and also not disputed legality and validity of finding given by inquiry officer and therefore, labour Court has rightly come to conclusion that finding given by inquiry officer is not challenged by workman and charges levelled against workman in departmental inquiry is proved against workman Exhibit 16 being statement given by Petitioner to concerned checking squad and in that statement, workman has admitted the charge to the effect that at the time when bus was checked, 23 passengers were found with tickets and eight passengers were found without tickets from whom, fare was recovered by conductor and therefore, unpunched tickets were obtained by checking staff from conductor. Passengers were not examined in departmental inquiry but according to labour Court, it is not necessary to be examined in departmental inquiry, for that, reporter who was examined in departmental inquiry for proving misconduct and also proving statement of passengers which were obtained by checking squad, for that, view has been taken by Apex Court in case of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh, 1977 2 SCC 491. therefore, labour Court has rightly come to conclusion that it is not necessary to examine passengers in departmental inquiry because hear say evidence can be accepted by inquiry officer from the evidence of reporter. Labour Court has come to conclusion, after considering default case No. 97/2004 and relevant documents which were produced on record that the decision of this Court which has been referred to and relied upon by Petitioner is not helpful to concerned Petitioner. Labour Court has also considered past record as per Exhibit 40 and has considered that looking to status as Badli conductor, number of misconducts in past have been committed which are relating to misappropriation and dishonesty and, therefore, such misconduct cannot be taken lightly and post of conductor is a post of confidence and therefore, no sympathy can be shown to a conductor who has committed such serious misconduct of dishonesty and misappropriation which is found to be proved in departmental inquiry because validity of finding is also not challenged, purshis was filed only to inquire for punishment under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

(3.) I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Supehia. I have also considered decisions which have been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Supehia. I have also perused award passed by labour Court, Junagadh. According to my opinion, when misconduct relating to dishonesty and misappropriation against conductor is proved, then, punishment of dismissal is considered to be proportionate and not harsh or unjust. That view has been taken by apex Court in number of decisions, AIR 2007 SC 2987; , AIR 2006 SC 1480; , AIR 2006 SC 2164., AIR 2006 2208. , AIR 2006 SC 2730; , , AIR 2006 SC 3227 and recent decision in case of Divisional Manager, Rajas than SRTC v. Kamruddin, 2009 3 LLJ 591 . In said decision, apex Court considered case of a bus conductor found to be carrying passengers without ticket. Relevant observations made by apex Court in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 are quoted as under at p. 594: