ORISSA ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD Vs. NARAYAN PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the Orissa Road Transport Company Limited is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business of transport having its head office at Berhampur, Ganjam. Opposite party No. 1 was working as a Conductor under the petitioner-company. On 30th March, 1975 while he was the Conductor of bus No. ORC 3690, the bus was checked by the enforcement staff and it was found that opposite party No. 1 had allowed thirteen passengers to travel in the bus without issuing tickets to them, Similarly, on 6th April, 1975 while he was the Conductor of bus No. ORC 2823, in the course of checking it was found that he had allowed thirty-three passengers to travel in the said bus bus without issuing tickets to them. Departmental proceeding was started against opposite party No. 1. Ultimately, on completion of the inquiry, he was found guilty and was discharged from service by order dated 23rd January, 1976. As opposite party No. 1 was a concerned workman in an industrial dispute case pending before the Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) the petitioner-company made an application u/s. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short the Act') seeking approval of the action taken against opposite party No. 1 One month's wages of opposite party No. 1 were remitted to him by postal money order. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that prima facie case has been established against opposite party No. 1 for misconduct specified in Clause 15 (1) (L) of the Standing Order of the petitioner company and the punishment of discharge has been legally passed by the authorities. The Tribunal, however, held that the deduction of Rs. 2/made by the management while remitting the house rent allowance to opposite party No. 1 was not justified. So it cannot legally be said that his one months wages as required by proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act have been remitted to him. It was held that opposite party No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 69. 73 as subsistence allowance and Rs. 26. 52 as house rent, the total amount being Rs. 96. 25. But a sum of Rs. 94. 25 was remitted to him by postal order after deducting Rs. 2/- as money order commission. So the Tribunal held that the requirement of proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act has not been complied with. Reliance was placed on a decision reported in Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd, v. S. K. Dutta and Anr. 1970-II L. L. J. 547. The plea of the management that Rs. 2/- was deducted towards money order commission from the subsistence allowance and not from the house rent allowance was not accepted and the action of the management in discharging opposite party No. 1 was not approved.

(2.) MR. Murty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is no illegality in deducting Rs. 2/- as money order commission. According to him, the deduction was made out of the subsistence allowance of Rs. 69. 73 and not from the house rent allowance of Rs. 26. 52. This claim on behalf of the management should have been accepted. The learned Tribunal has misconstrued the decision reported Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. S. K. Dutta and Anr. (supra ). The above submissions have been strongly refuted by the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party' No. 1.

(3.) SECTION 33 (2) of the Act reads as follows: -