GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS Vs. YASH PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yash Pal Sharma (non-petitioner No.l) was employed as Conductor with the Haryana Roadways. He was on duty on 9.11.1983 as Conductor of Bus No.2605 on the Ponta Sahib- Chandigarh route. Surprise checking was conducted by the Flying Squad of the Haryana Roadways and seven passengers were found travelling in that bus without tickets. It was thus noticed that the Conductor, Yash Pal Sharma, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.32.50 paise by way of bus fare collected from the seven passengers. A charge-sheet was given and thereafter he was dismissed from service on 12.12.1988.

(2.) The workman challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court with the plea that, at the time of surprise checking of the bus by the Flying Squad, he was in the process of issuing tickets to the passengers but he could not do so because he was busy in making enquiries about the illness of a relative's wife who was also travelling in that bus. The Labour Court accepted the explanation furnished by the workman and took the view that the dismissal from service was too harsh a punishment. The workman, Yash Pal Sharma, was, therefore, reinstated though without back wages.

(3.) The order of the Labour Court is under challenge in the present writ petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, the Haryana Roadways, that there was no reason to take a lenient view after it was found during departmental enquiry that the workman had deliberately not issued tickets to the passengers. It was not a mere case of negligence as observed by the Labour Court because there was no reason whatsoever for not issuing tickets to the passengers. The only explanation given by the workman before the Labour Court was that he was attending to a lady who was sick and whom he knew. This explanation was not supported by any evidence, nor it was a plausible explanation. It is contended that it was not at all a case of negligence in so far as the non-issuance of tickets to the passengers was concerned. In the absence of any evidence showing the inability of the workman for not issuing the tickets to seven passengers, it was not proper for the learned Judge of the Labour Court to accept the plea of the workman. It was not a case of simple negligence but a case where tickets were not issued with dishonest intention.