RAJDEO POORANLAL Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Bus Conductor employed by the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 11-12-1974, he was going in a Bus as Conductor, The Bus was checked by the flying squad of the corporation. The petitioner was produced before the Mobile Court. He was fined Rs. 35 under section 7 of the M. P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Seva (Bina Tikat Yatra Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974. On 15-4-1975, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Corporation. The notice stated as to why the petitioner having been convicted by a criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude be not dismissed from service. The petitioner in his reply to the notice stated that 3 Police Constables boarded the bus near the Court and the petitioner, after issuing tickets to other passengers, was in the process of making tickets for these Constables, when the bus was checked. The petitioner was dismissed from service under Regulation 109 of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees' Service Regulations, by order of the Depot Manager, Raipur, dated 22-4-1975. The petitioner approached the Labour Court against his dismissal. The Labour Court, by order dated 22-7-1977, allowed the petitioner's application and granted reinstatement without back wages. In the revision filed by the Corporation, the Industrial Court, by order dated 7-7-1978, set aside the order of the labour Court. There was another revision filed by the petitioner for grant of back wages. That was dismissed. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Industrial court.

(2.) THE view taken by the Industrial Court in this case is that under regulation 109, there was no necessity of holding any enquiry and the petitioner could be dismissed from service even without any notice. Regulation 109 is one of the Regulations made by the Corporation under section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Regulation 109 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 69, the services of an employee, if he has been convicted in a Criminal Court or has been declared insolvent by a competent Court, shall be liable to be terminated without notice. Regulation 69 enables termination of employment on notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that Regulation 109, in so far as it provides for termination of employment on conviction by a criminal Court, should not be given effect to, because it is inconsistent with Standing Order 12 of the Standard Standing Orders applicable to the Corporation under the M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act, 1961. In our opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel must be accepted. Standing Order 12 (1) specifies the acts or omissions which constitute major misconduct. Clause (a) of this Standing Order specifies conviction by a Court of law for an offence involving mora! turpitude as a major misconduct. Standing Order 12 (4) requires that no punishment shall be imposed on any employee, unless proved guilty of misconduct on an enquiry conducted in the manner provided therein. There is no exception in Standing Order 12 (4) that no enquiry is necessary in case an employee is charged under Standing Order 12 (1) (a. ). In other words, an enquiry is also contemplated under Standing Order 12 (4), when the misconduct consists of conviction by a Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude. Here there are two matters which should be taken notice of: (1) Regulation 109 refers to any conviction by a Criminal Court, whereas Standing order 12 (1) (a) refers to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude; and (2) Regulation 109 contemplates no inquiry whereas Standing order 12 (4) requires an enquiry even in a case where the charge is of conviction by a criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. There is thus an apparent conflict between Regulation 109 and Standing order 12. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Ramchandra, (1977 MPLJ341.), that in case of conflict Standing Orders prevail over the regulations. Standing Order 12 must, in our opinion, therefore, be given effect to in preference to Regulation 109.