PATTUKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER IIND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Madras, dated 11.8.1993 in I.D. No. 414 of 1989, Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation, Vellore has filed the above writ petition.It is seen that the petitioner is a transport Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The second respondent A. A. Swamidoss was employed as conductor. He was assigned duty in Route No. 56-B on 16.6.1976.

(2.) THE bus was subject to a surprise check by the checking squad of the Corporation at about 17.00 hours, various irregularities were found on the part of the 2nd respondent. He also misbehaved towards the checking inspectors and obstructed them from getting statements from the passengers and also threatened the concerned passengers. He refused to receive the I.R. memo. On accepting the I.R. memo after some time, he tore all the I.R. book and ran away from the spot. THE checking staff submitted their report dated 17.6.1976 and after scrutinizing the said report, the 2nd respondent was placed under suspension on 18.6.1976 and a charge-sheet dated 14.7.1976 was issued containing certain charges against him.

(3.) THE court held that," in view of proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that Management has lost confidence that the workmen would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to grant relief with minor penalty."In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the High Court materially erred in confirming the directions given by the Labour Court in reinstating the respondent-workman with 25% back wages. For giving the aforesaid direction, the Labour Court considered that there is no evidence regarding the past misconduct by the employees and, therefore, it can be observed that they have rendered several years of service without any blemish and to some extent, there was lapse on the part of the Management.In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases".As stated earlier, the facts in the case before the Supreme Court are almost similar to that in the present case and the Supreme Court has held that in view of proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the Management has lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and in such a circumstance, the Labour Court/Tribunal is not justified in modifying the punishment with minor penalty by exercising power under S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In our case, for modifying the punishment of dismissal, it considered that there is no evidence regarding past misconduct by the employee. For this, their Lordships have emphasised that in case of proved misappropriation "there is no question of considering past record." Another decision referred to Mr. Sanjay Mohan is in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Hullikatti 2001 (98) FJR 359 S.C. In that case, the conductor had collected at a particular trip of the bus Rs. 2.25 from each of the 35 passengers but had issued tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1.75 only.