MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, GURDASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Conductor with Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana since 1975. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide order dated 18.11.1978 on four charges dated 2.6.1978, 7.7.1978, 27.10.1978 and 28.10.1978. The following charges were levelled against him :-

(2.) On receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, the punishing authority agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge dated 2.6.1978 but differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer pertaining to charges dated 7.7.1978 and 27.10.1978. While recording his disagreement, the punishing authority did not believe the prosecution and defence evidence but relied only on charge-sheet which was served by the department on the workman. The punishing authority was of the opinion that in case the workman was not guilty why he would have been charge-sheeted and thus he was of the view that penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of the arrears during suspension be imposed on the workman. A show cause notice dated 16.7.1979 was served on the workman for showing cause as to why the proposed action be not taken against him and he was asked to make representation, if any, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The punishing authority, after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the workman, held the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him and ordered his removal from service. It was further ordered that the workman will not be paid anything more than what has already been paid to him during the suspension period.

(3.) The matter was taken to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Labour Court vide order dated 22.7.1985 found that the punishing authority had given cogent reasons in support of the charges dated, 27.10.1978 and 7.7.1978. The Labour Court further found that the reasons given by the punishing authority in support of his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based of the evidence which was erroneously rejected by the Enquiry Officer. The finding of the punishing authority with regard to the charges having been found against the workman was thus accepted by the Labour Court. While coming to the question of punishment imposed on the workman by the authority, the Labour Court invoked the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and taking into consideration that the amount involved was only Rs. 6.70, the imposition of extreme penalty of removal from service was found to be harsh and not justified. The order of the punishing authority to this extent was set aside by the Labour Court and in its place the Labour Court ordered forfeiture of four increments of the workman with cumulative effect. The workman was ordered to be reinstated into service but without back wages The workman has come to this Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court to the extent of punishment i.e. stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and denying of back wages.