P SHANKERLAL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court , Madurai dated 30. 12. 1997 passed in I. D. No. 164 of 1994.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows:- THE first respondent is a Transport Corporation. THE petitioner was working as a conductor in Aranthangi Branch under the first respondent Corporation. On 04. 10. 1993, he took the bus bearing Registration No. TN63 NO258 at 3. 40. p. m. During the trip between Rameswaram and Anranthangi , at 4. 30 p. m. , at Nariappalam , the Officers of the corporation got into the bus and made a surprise verification and found that he had received a sum of Rs. 42/- from six passengers at the rate of Rs. 7/- each, for the distance between Rameswaram and Ramnad and issued tickets and entry has been made in the counterfoil at the rate of Rs. 1/-, but in the original ticket at the rate of rs. 7/- and thereby attempted to misappropriate the sum to the tune of Rs. 36/-and manipulated the records. Statements were obtained from the passengers. THE tickets and counterfoils were seized. But the petitioner refused to affix his signature either the statement of the passengers or the tickets of counterfoils. THE petitioner was placed under suspension, pending enquiry by an order dated 05. 10. 1993. THEreafter, a detailed charge memo dated 13. 10. 1993 was issued to him along with the copy of the basic report and he was directed to submit his explanation. Since he failed to submit his explanation, it was decided to conduct a domestic enquiry against him. In the enquiry, the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunities in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner also availed the opportunities. THEreafter, the enquiry officer in his findings dated 04. 12. 1993 has held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry. THE first respondent provisionally decided to agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also provisionally decided to dismiss him from service and accordingly, a second show cause notice dated 13. 12. 1993 was issued to him. On that, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 04. 02. 1994. After considering the entire records and reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent came to the conclusion that charges levelle d against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry and accordingly, he held that the following misconducts of the petitioner have been proved viz. , "1. On 04. 10. 93 in the bus TN 63 N 0258 has taken trip as conductor and collected fares from 6 passengers at the rate of Rs. 7/-bound for Ramna d from Rameswara m and issued tickets to the effect of Rs. 1 and entry was made in the counterfoils as if tickets are issued at the rate of Rs. 7/- 2) By his above activities, he attempted to misappropriate to the tune of Rs. 36/- 3) He failed to make proper entries in the respective documents and manipulated false documents. 4) He failed to sign in the statements of passengers and in tickets. 5) By his above activities he committed misconducts under order 16 (c) of the Model Standing Orders".

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no independent witnesses like passengers who travelle d in the bus have been examined to substantiate the Management's case and the available materials on record do not warrant the findings arrived at by the enquiry Officer and therefore the Labour Court's findings are vitiated.