MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. R. RAVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ravi was working as a Conductor in TNSTC (Kumbakonam Division IV Ltd). On 05.01.2000, while he was on duty, the bus was checked by Checking Inspector and it was found that in three tickets, the said Ravi had made some corrections by putting a plus (+) symbol and adding a higher amount against the original amount for which the tickets were issued. The Management took the view that this was done with an intention to defraud the collection amount and that the said Ravi had done so by collecting the lesser fare tickets already issued to the short distance passengers and re-issued the same by adding further amount to the long distance passengers. The Checking Inspector intimated the Management about the acts of the delinquent/conductor.

(2.) The said Ravi was placed under suspension on 27.01.2000. Charge memo was issued on 08.02.2000. After holding enquiry and issuing show cause notice, he was dismissed from service on 15.09.2001. The delinquent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.138 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli. By award dated 05.09.2012, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. However, back wages were denied. Though the award was passed on 05.09.2012, the Management did not comply with the same. It filed W.P.(MD)No.16769 of 2014 questioning the award. The delinquent/conductor also filed W.P.(MD)No.11468 of 2017 questioning the award insofar as the denial of back wages and other attendant benefits to him. Since both the writ petitions are pertaining to the same award, this Court clubbed them together and heard the Counsel on either side.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation pointed out that the delinquent had not disputed the alterations made in the tickets and that on his own showing, he stood condemned. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the delinquent/conductor had taken back the used tickets from the passengers and re-issued them to other passengers by adding additional amount in the tickets so as to equate the fare amount. The explanation given by the delinquent that it was a usual practice, cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the delinquent that the Checking Inspector had any motive or animosity on him. The Standing Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the quantum of misappropriation is not a relevant factor. He drew the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which viewed misappropriation by conductors very seriously. He wanted this Court to set aside the impugned award in toto.