DIVISION CONTROLLER GSRTC Vs. RATANSINGH K THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, made in Reference (LCA) No. 41 of 1978 on 31st March 1982 which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in service on the original post with continuity of service, but without backwages. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The respondent-workman was working as driver under the Corporation. On 27-2- 1976 he was on duty on Disa Panthwada route. He allowed three unauthorised persons to sit in the cabin of the driver. The 5 conductor of the bus went lo those three persons for issuing tickets to them, but the respondent-workman (driver) did not allow the conductor to give tickets lo those persons. Those persons had beaten the conductor and abused him, but still the respondent-driver did not intervene in the matter and stop those persons from misbehaving with the conductor. Upon this conduct of the driver and those three unauthorised persons, the conductor insisted that until those three persons are given the tickets he will not allow the bus to start. On this the respondent-workman got exited, opened the bonnet of the bus and. broke the flow pipe and removed the bolts and accelerator and declared that the bus had a break down. He forced the conductor to go to Panthwada to inform the Manager about the break down. This unauthorised act of the driver has resulted in causing great difficulties and inconvenience to the passengers. The passengers were forced to proceed on foot. The driver has been charge-sheeted for the misconduct. In the inquiry, the charge was found proved against him. The disciplinary authority, taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct, dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised industrial dispute and the same has been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) The papers of the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman were produced before the Labour Court on behalf of the Corporation. When the matter had come up for hearing before the Labour Court the respondent-workman filed pursis Exh. 9 admitting the legality of the domestic inquiry held against him and he stated that he did not wish to lead any oral evidence. On behalf of the Corporation pursis Exh. 10 was given stating that as the workman had admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry conducted against him by the Corporation, it did not desire to lead any oral evidence and the same may be treated as closed. The only point considered by the Labour Court for its decision was about punishment given to the workman. Relying on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2740 of 1981 decided on 1-12-1981 the Labour Court has reached the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal was extreme. The Labour Court has given reasons for taking lenient view in the matter of punishment that looking to the condition prevailing in the country and the widespread unemployment and absence of unemployment insurance schemes the punishment of dismissal should be given only in rare cases.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Slate Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow, reported in 1994(1) SC 217, and in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. reported in JT 1995 (8) S.C. 65, contended that the Labour Court has very limited power of judicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent for proved misconduct. In the matter of punishment, interference could have been made only where punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the misconduct which was there against the workman was grave and serious. He had allowed three unauthorised persons to travel in the bus and allowed them to sit in the driver's cabin and did not allow the conductor of the bus to issue tickets to those three persons. Not only this, when the conductor insisted on issuing tickets to those three persons he had gone to the extent of damaging the property of the Corporation and the bus was deliberately made to break down. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Corporation provides travelling facilities to the passengers and because of the conduct of the respondent- driver the travelling public had to go to their respective destinations on foot. The driver should have taken care of the passengers, leaving apart the dispute in-between him and the conductor. But he has not taken care of the passengers and compelled them to go to their destinations on foot. This conduct of the workman certainly lowered down the prestige and reputation of the Corporation amongst the travelling public and in such matters no lenient view should have been taken and the minimum punishment should be dismissal from service.