SATNAM SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran Depot. He was removed from service by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran Depot, by order annexure P-7, dated 14/01/1986, on the charge that when on 26/01/1979, bus No. 370, on which he was conductor on duty, was checked at Jandiala octroi post by the checking staff. On checking of the passengers, it was found that he had charged bus fare amounting to Rs. 1.60 paise from four passengers but had not issued them tickets. Eight more passengers were found travelling by that bus who were without tickets. He would have charged Rs. 3.20 paise from them and misappropriated the amount. Two more passengers were found, from whom he had charged full fare but issued them tickets of denomination lesser by 30 paise and misappropriated the amount. Shri Satnam Singh thus misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1.90 paise and further he would have misappropriated another Rs. 3.20 paise, which he would have received at the point where passengers alighted.

(2.) The petitioner, Satnam Singh, raised an industrial dispute whereby he sought to question his removal from service. That industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Amritsar, under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the award, annexure P-8, dated 5/12/1984, the Labour Court, Amritsar, adjudicated the industrial dispute against him and held that the termination of his services was legal and valid.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Amritsar, annexure P-8, through this writ petition filed by him under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for its quashing and his reinstatement into service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. It is alleged by him in this petition that the charges went unproved and he was not found guilty by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer did not find that he had misappropriated any amount. He has found that if the bus had not been checked, the conductor would have taken the money. No statement of the passengers was recorded nor any cash was checked. The case of the prosecution was not based on any evidence. It was a no evidence case. He gave reply to the charge-sheet in which he stated that the allegations were false and he was still issuing tickets in the bus, which was, very heavily loaded when it was checked.