STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARJINDER SINGH, CONDUCTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated July 22,1981 whereby the management-State of Punjab has been directed to give fresh appointment to Harjinder Singh-respondent.

(2.) Respondent-workman was employed as a conductor with Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana, who, while on duty had collected fare from some passengers and pocketed the same without issuing tickets to them. A domestic enquiry was ordered in which the workman was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. He was then dismissed from service by way of punishment. This dismissal gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper. After recording evidence of the parties and going through the proceedings, it was found that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the workman had been given full opportunity to defend himself and produce evidence' While deciding the reference on merits, the Labour Court found that since the workman had committed fraud in regard to Rs. 9.70 only, the punishment of dismissal was too severe and disproportionate to the charge proved. It exercised its powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), set aside the order of dismissal and directed the State of Punjab to give him fresh employment as a result whereof the punishment stood reduced to loss of previous service and back wages. It is this award which has been impugned in the present writ petition by the State of Punjab.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that in the circumstances of the present case, the Labour Court was not justified in exercising its powers under Sec. 11-A of the Act and thereby reducing the punishment awarded to the workman. It has been found that a fair and proper domestic enquiry was held against the workman. The charge of having embezzled some money which the workman had collected from the passengers stood proved. This charge is serious enough to warrant an order of dismissal. The mere fact that the amount pocketed by the workman was only Rs. 9.70 is no ground to take a lenient view in the matter or to reduce the punishment in exercise of its powers under Sec. 11-A of the Act. No doubt, a small amount was embezzled but it may be because the conductor did not have large amount with him at that time. The fact that he collected the money from the passengers and did not issue tickets is a conduct which depicts dishonesty and the only justifiable punishment for such misconduct should normally be dismissal. The impugned award giving direction to the State Government to provide fresh employment to the workman is, therefore, quashed.