B H K RAO Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 143 of 1997, dated 3-7-1999.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner workman was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 22-10-1984. While he was working as Conductor, on 17-8-1995 a check was conducted by the officials and found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to a batch of four passengers, after collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 1.25 each totalling to Rs. 5.00. Accordingly, a charge was issued and an enquiry was conducted. Basing on the enquiry report, the Depot Manager passed orders removing the petitioner from service by order dated 4-12-1995. The said order of removal became the subject matter of the I.D. at the instance of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering the rival contentions and the material on record concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and there were no infirmities warranting interference with the said enquiry. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment the Labour Court relied upon a judgment of this Court and felt that in view of the said decision there are no grounds warranting interference by the Labour Court. Hence, confirmed the same.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was charged for the alleged cash and ticket irregularities to a total sum of Rs. 5.00 on the ground that he failed to issue tickets to four passengers. The said fact of cash and ticket irregularities was disputed by the petitioner stating that he had issued the tickets to some of the passengers and while he was issuing tickets, the checking officials have entered the bus and in the course of enquiry by the checking officials the tickets were fallen on the ground in the bus and therefore there was some confusion and the passengers apprehending action against them informed the officials that tickets were not issued. Alternatively, it is contended that even assuming that such a charge has been proved against the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is too excessive and disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-workman. The learned Counsel also contended that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it was the duty of the Labour Court to consider the proportionality of the punishment. It is also stated that the Labour Court merely followed a decision of this Court and concluded that it has no power to go into the proportionality of the punishment. It is also stated that a single Judge of this Court has considered the decision, which was relied upon by the Labour Court and held that the said decision was not rendered without reference to the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it was held by the learned single Judge that the said decision has no application to the cases, which are coming under the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the Act. It is therefore contended that in view of the decision of the learned single Judge, the order of the Labour Court is clearly in error. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Colour-Chem Ltd. vs. A.I. Alaspurkar, where the Supreme Court has ordered reinstatement of a worker, whose services were terminated, holding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.