DEVKINANDAN TIWARI Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Corporation' ). On 10-9-1983 when Bus No. 8093 belonging to the respondent Corporation in which the petitioner was on duty as Conductor on Kishangarh-Harpalpur route, was checked at about 9-15 a. m. by the Flying Squad of the respondent-Corporation and it was found that out of 53 total passengers, the respondent (petitioner herein) was carrying 20 passengers without tickets in the said bus. The checker realised double fare from the said 20 passengers and issued tickets to them, The petitioner was charge sheeted for the aforementioned misconduct and domestic enquiry was held against him. The petitioner took the defence that those 20 passengers had just boarded the bus at the place where chekers arrived and checked the bus. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence rejected the defence set up by the petitioner and recorded the conclusion that the misconduct was fully. established and the petitioner was found guilty for carrying 20 passengers without tickets. Consequently, by order dated 17th December, 1983 (Annexure-IV) the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the domestic enquiry as well as the order of his dismissal before the Labour Court under section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court did not find any error or defect in the domestic enquiry and found that it was just and proper but took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner was harsh and excessive. In the opinion of the Labour Court, the punishment of withholding back wages and a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rs. One Hundred) would be adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and also imposed a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The respondent Corporation preferred an appeal under section 65 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act before the State Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by its judgment dated 20th April, 1987 (Annexure VIII) set aside the order of the Labour Court and restored the order of dismissal from service of, the petitioner passed by 'the appropriate authority of respondent-Corporation holding that the misconduct established against the petitioner was of a grave and serious nature and there was no scope for any interference with the punishment. It is this order passed by. the State Industrial Court (Annexure-VIII) which has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner first contended that the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under section 107-A of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, had found the punishment of dismissal from service as harsh and excessive and, therefore, it was justified in reinstating the petitioner withholding the back wages and imposing fine of Rs. 100/- as punishment, with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to improve himself in future. Relying on the decisions in the case of Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Mohd. Usman. AIR 1984 SC 321. Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s. Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 914. Jitendra Singh Rathore v. Shri Baidynath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. , AIR 1984 SC 976. and Scooter India Ltd. v. Labour Court. Lucknow, AIR 1989 S. C. 149, it was urged that there was no justification or any propriety for the Industrial Court to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Labour Court. It is clear from the decision referred to above, that in the case of Mohd. Usman (supra) the Labour Court after considering the nature of misconduct, held that the punishment of termination of service was disproportionately heavy and, therefore, reduced the punishment to stoppage of the increments for two years. But from the facts of the aforesaid case, it is not clear as to what was the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by the employee by reason of which a lenient view in respect of award of punishment was taken. In the case of Ved Prakash (supra), the industrial employee was dismissed on a charge of abusing to some workers and Officers of the Management and it was on these facts that the charge was found not to be serious one so as to result in total loss of confidence of the Management and, therefore, punishment of dismissal was held to be disproportionate. Similarly, the facts in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the case of Scooter India Ltd. (supra), the misconduct said to have been committed was rough behaviour, bordering only on rudeness and it was for this reason that the punishment of dismissal from service was substituted by the Labour Court by punishment of withholding of 75 percent back wages. Thus, on facts the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable, while in the instant case having regard to the gravity and seriousness of misconduct the interference by the Industrial Court cannot be said to be improper or unjustified.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that reliying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Vaidyanath v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1974 MPLJ 671, 1975 JLJ 297 took the view that the punishment imposed by the Management when misconduct is proved in a proper domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with except in cases where it is so harsh as to suggest victimisation or unfair labour practice. Similarly in Baldev Singh v. P. O. , Labour Court, AIR 1987 SC 104 it was observed that when it is found by the Tribunal that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and there was no violation of principles of natural justice, the punishment of termination of service must be upheld. In the present case, in, the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner, the major misconduct of carrying 20 passengers without tickets was found to be fully established and the Labour Court also clearly found that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and the same was not vitiated by violation of any principles of natural justice and, therefore, there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the punishment of termination by the Management in a case where there were reasons to show that the Management had totally lost confidence in the petitioner. The respondent Corporation was satisfied from the conduct of petitioner that no confidence can be reposed in him. The facts prima facie indicated that the termination was neither colourable exercise of power by the employer nor an act of victimisation. But haying found an established act of dishonesty which had shaken the confidence of the employer, the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the order of the Labour Court. The reasoning of the Labour Court in reducing the punishment on the ground that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to improve himself is ridiculous and fallacious. To afford a chance of improvement at the cost of the employer after an act of major misconduct of a grave and serious nature was established, would be very unfair and unreasonable from the point of view and interest of the employer. This misconduct in itself was sufficient to dispense with the service of the petitioner and it is not necessary to look to his past records. In the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that there was any lack of jurisdiction or want of jurisdiction in making the impugned order by the Industrial Court. We find no infirmity far less any illegality in the same.