DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. MANILAL BANSIDAS BAVANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 1686 of 1985 by which the Labour Court has directed the S.T. Corporation to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of service without backwages. The aforesaid award is challenged by the Corporation on the ground that considering the misconduct of the concerned workman, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the penalty of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and that the Labour Court should not have exercised powers under Sec. 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The respondent workman was appointed as a Conductor in the S.T. Corporation. He was subjected to charge-sheet on the ground that while on duty on the relevant day he collected fare from 19 passengers but failed to issue tickets to them. After conclusion of inquiry, the respondent workman was subjected to penalty of dismissal. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court as concerned workman raised industrial dispute.

(3.) The case of the workman before the Inquiry Officer was that he was issuing tickets and during that process, the bus was checked. It is his case that the checking Inspector was not having good terms with him. The Labour Court has observed in Para 7 of the order that the Competent Authority has acted only upon the spot statement and that the statements of certain passengers were not taken into account. The Tribunal has also further observed in the award that the defence of the workman in inquiry cannot be ruled out. However, at the same time, there are spot statements of the workman and the witness and the same are running contrary to each other. The Tribunal has also found that there was a serious charge against the concerned workman which disentitles him from claiming backwages. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not given any finding whether the misconduct is proved or not. Ultimately, the Tribunal has passed an order of reinstatement without backwages. It is argued by Mr. Raval that even in the past, the concerned workman was found to have committed 13 similar acts of misconduct and that his past record is absolutely bad. Mr. Raval has fairly submitted that the award of the Labour Court is of 1988 and the said award is complied with by reinstating the workman in service as no interim relief was granted at the time of admitting this petition. He submitted that in the facts of the case some penalty was required to be imposed upon the workman. He submitted that instead of sending the matter back, this Court may exercise its powers under Sec. 11-A as the petitioner is retiring on 31.10.2002. Mr. Upadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the respondent submitted that he has no objection if some penalty was imposed and that the concerned workman is retiring by way of superannuation on 31.10.2002.