THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE BEST UNDERTAKINGS Vs. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, THE BEST WORKERS UNION AND SHRI CHANDRAKANT KASHID, BUS CONDUCTOR NO. 75133

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the Order dated 5th August 1997 passed by the IVth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (BIR) No. 121 of 1996. The brief facts of this appeal are as under. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 5th August 1997 passed by the Labour Court, it is submitted by the Appellant that the said impugned order of the learned Labour Judge is contrary to law and without any jurisdiction The learned Labour Judge erred in interfering with the said order on the ground that it was shockingly disproportionate that after holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the order of the Trying Officer was not perverse, that the learned Labour Judge failed to consider the past bad service record of the Shri Chandrakant Kashid (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent workman), and it further failed to observe this was only a case of gross negligence and not that of misappropriation and that the amount of shortage was only Rs. 16 per month, which was not at all serious. In fact, this amount was over and above the permissible limit and that the shortage was not only of Rs. 16 per month but of Rs. 56.25 which, in any event, was excessive. The learned Labour Judge further failed of appreciate that minor punishments were given to him on the earlier sudden occasions with view to give - an opportunity to the employee to improve himself and hence the remain given by the learned Labour Judge for holding the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate are not at all convincing. IT further failed to appreciate that to bring back such an employee is service who has been held guilty of incurring habitual shortage on number of occasions in the past would nut be in the interest of the Undertaking and would adversely affect the revenue collection of the Undertaking which was not at all desirable, and that it has further failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Hence, it is prayed by the Appellant to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the said impugned Order dated 5th August 1997 passed by the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (BIR) No. 121 of 1996.

(2.) FROM the aforesaid pleadings of the Appellant, the points that arise for my determination are as under: - -

(3.) IT is the main bone of arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Labour Judge erred in interferring with the said impugned order on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly misproportionate to the nature of misconduct committed by the Respondent employee. Admittedly, there is no dispute about fairness of the said enquiry and also about the findings given by the trying officer of the Appellant Undertaking. It is also not disputed by the Respondent No. 1 union while Representing the Respondent No. 2 workman that the concerned workman was punished for the same misconduct on come occasions in the part. It is also not disputed that as per rules of the Undertaking Rs. 40 shortage within a month is permissible and that the Applicant had shortage of Rs. 56.25 at the relevant time in question. It means admittedly an excess amount is Rs. 16 over and above the permissible limit under the rules. No doubt, the Appellant being a public transport undertaking, its conductor is responsible for proper account of money and any negligence on his part while performing his duty may lead to a financial loss to the Undertaking. The learned Labour Judge while passing the said impugned order has directed the Appellant Undertaking to reinstate the Respondent workman in its service without back wages but with continuity of service and the punishment of his dismissal is reduced to withholding of 2 increments with permanent effect, and further ordered that his case be reviewed as per rules of the Undertaking for releasing the said increments and gave one more opportunity to the Respondent workman considering his age and the service put by him in the Undertaking.