JASWINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Jaswinder Singh (For short the workman) challenging the award of the Labour Court, Ambala whereby the order terminating his services has been upheld.

(2.) THE workman was employed as a conductor with Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar. One of the allegations levelled against him was that when his bus was checked, it was found that nine police officials were un -authorisedly travelling from Ambala Cantt to Jagadhari and the workman had not issued the tickets to them and he refused to hand over the Police vouchers to the inspecting team and misbehaved with that team. Another allegation is that on April 16, 1984, he was deployed on a special contract bus which had been hired by a marriage party and instead of allowing 52 persons of the Barat, he permitted 92 persons to travel therein thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. The third charge against the workman was that on November 21, 1985. The inspecting team found that he had charged bus fare from some passengers and has not issued the tickets to them and he thereby embezzled the Government funds to the tune of Rs. four. Three separate show cause notice were issued to the workman and he gave his replies which were not found satisfactory and consequently a regular departmental inquiry was held and enquiry officer appointed. The enquiry officer found that the charges stood proved against the workman and a report was accordingly submitted to the General Manager who was the punishing authority. The General Manager agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer terminated the services of the workman and his salary for the suspension period was restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala.

(3.) THE first charge against the workman was in regard to unauthorised travelling by nine police officials in the bus. The case of the department is that these Police officials had given their vouchers to the workman but he had not issued the tickets to them and refused to hand over these vouchers to the inspecting team and misbehaved with them. From the statements of the witnesses recorded by the enquiry Officer, it is established that the Police officials were travelling without tickets and that the workman did not hand over the Police vouchers to the inspecting team. As regards the charge of misbehaviour, the Labour Court has not indicated as to what the nature of the alleged misbehaviour was. There is, however, no embezzlement involved as it is not the case of the department that any money had passed to the workman which he did not account for.