V DHARMA REDDY Vs. V DHARMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Labour Court on an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the non-issuance of tickets to ten passengers who were found to be not having tickets during the first and second checks, was not wilful and that there was a reasonable cause. The Labour Court also found that the 1st respondent closed the Tray Numbers upto stage No. 12 and six passengers boarded the bus only thereafter. So also the four passengers boarded the bus at stage No. 10 and the check was exercised at stage No. 11. The Labour Court noted that there was heavy congestion in the bus and having regard to the statements of the inspecting staff and the passengers it is quite possible that the 1st respondent-conductor would have issued the tickets but for the check. The Labour Court observed that the 1st respondent's explanation in not collecting the fare and issuing tickets to some of the passengers was not duly considered by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. These are basically the findings of fact and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC has not pointed out any legal error or non-consideration of relevant material or any unreasonable inference drawn by the Labour Court which would have the effect of vitiating the finding. The Labour Court having found that at best the 1st respondent had committed a technical lapse in not observing the rule of issue and start, and directed deduction of two increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment. The learned standing Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this is not a fit case for award of back wages. But the findings of fact being what they are and the nature of the charge (not clear) to the 1st respondent is not of serious nature, I am not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. With regard to the previous punishment the Labour Court has rightly observed that it was not put to the 1st respondent in the course of the enquiry nor was it mentioned in the show-cause notice and therefore the same cannot from the basis for imposing a heavier punishment. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Durg District Metal and Engineering Works' Union v. Managing Partner, Bhilai Construction Company, Industrial estate, Bhilai District, Durg, Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1982) 3 SSC 386 (1). The short judgment read as follows : "After hearing Counsel on either side we feel that the only question that needs consideration relates to back wages for the period 13/05/1971 till the order of retirement. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Durg, to decide the question whether the workmen were gainfully employed or not during that period. In case it is found that they were employed they would not get anything by way of back ages. But if it is found that they did not work elsewhere during that period they would be entitled to back wages for the said period. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs."

(2.) Relying upon the observations in the Supreme Court judgment the learned Standing Counsel submits that in this case also there is no finding of the Labour Court that the 1st respondent did not work elsewhere during the period he was out of service. It does not appear that this aspect was put in issue at any time nor is it the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent was employed elsewhere. The facts of the case in the Supreme Court Judgment are not quite clear. It is not possible to infer that the facts are identical to the present case. Hence I do not think that the judgment of the Supreme Court is of any assistance to the petitioner.

(3.) In the result the Writ Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.