DEVARAPALI SUBBAREDDY Vs. DEPOT MANAGER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the Award dated 21.02.2007 in I.D. No. 84 of 2002 passed by the 3rd respondent, as being illegal and arbitrary and being violative of Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has sought a consequential direction to have him reinstated with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits together with interest at 24% P.A. Facts in brief, as averred by the petitioner, are that he joined the service of the respondent Corporation in 1990 and continuously worked without any remark up to 01.12.2000. On 24.11.2000, a check was conducted and he was charge-sheeted on the ground that he had collected excess fare without issuing tickets, and that he reissued tickets, apart from incidental charges. After due enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has found him guilty of gross misconduct and eventually passed an order of removal dated 07.04.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 84 of 2002 before the 3rd respondent, which was pleased to return a nil award dated 21.02.2007, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) The respondent Corporation has filed its Counter and opposed the claim of the petitioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and he was removed from service after following the due process. In view of overwhelming documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent Corporation, the 3rd respondent-Labour Court has rightly refused to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the respondent Corporation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Disciplinary Authority has relied on a passenger's statement, which was taken at the time of spot check, and that any statement given by passenger at the spot check could be used as a prima facie evidence for the purpose of forming an opinion to charge the workman and to conduct an enquiry, but it cannot be said to be a substantial piece of evidence to come to a conclusion that the workman is guilty of misconduct. It is further contended that despite cogent explanation given by the workman, the Disciplinary Authority has been swayed by the statement said to have been given by the passenger at the time of spot check. It is the specific case of the petitioner that unless the said passenger was examined during the course of departmental enquiry and he was subjected to cross-examination, his statement could not have had any corroborative value. Thus, the very approach of the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated inasmuch as it has placed reliance on statement of the passenger, which is clearly inadmissible. Accordingly, the learned counsel has also found fault with the observation of the 3rd respondent-Labour Court that the passenger need not be examined in the light of the evidence of checking officials.