S VENUGOPAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari mandamus to quash the award passed by the first respondent-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore, in I.D. No. 289 of 2000, dated 14.11.2003, by calling for the records connected thereto, with a consequential direction to the second respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner was working as a Conductor in Tiruvannamalai Branch under the second respondent Corporation. On 13.3.1995, when he was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-23-0-296-203 (M) proceeding from Vandavasi, the Checking Inspector boarded bus at Kadaisikulam bus stop, whereby on verification by the Checking Inspector, it was found that the petitioner had issued tickets only upto 70 passengers out of 80 passengers. But, according to the petitioner, when he was about to issue tickets to the remaining passengers, the Checking Inspector snatched away the ticket book from him. Under these circumstances, the second respondent Corporation suspended the petitioner from service and thereupon, issued a charge memo dated 9.6.1995, containing 7 charges, which are extracted hereunder:

(2.) Mr. Balan Haridass, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when no independent witnesses like passengers, who travelled in the bus were examined in the enquiry proceedings, the entire proceedings of the Enquiry Officer are vitiated, that too, when he not even examined the driver of the bus to arrive at a conclusion. Again when the above said mistake was pointed out before the Labour Court, the Labour Court also repeated the same grave error. He further submitted that the Checking Inspector boarded the bus even before the bus reaching the stage and the alleged lapse would not have occurred, had the Checking Inspector boarded the bus after the bus reached the fare stage and again when all those facts were narrated in his explanations, the same were not even properly considered either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Labour Court, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhunagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai and Another, 2010 4 LLN 824 to say that the allegation made on the back of employees cannot be taken at face value and the concept of preponderance of probabilities does not mean that reliance can be placed on mere allegations, surmises or conjectures.