SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order and judgment dated 30.07.2018, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant-Management against the award dated 29.11.2017, passed by the Labour Court whereby the punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman was set aside, had since been dismissed.

(2.) The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

(3.) The respondent-workman was employed with the appellant i.e. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, as a Conductor. He was charge-sheeted vide memo No.637 dated 26.08.1996, for while being on duty with bus No.CH01-G-5080, 15 passengers, who were travelling from Ambala Cantt. to Mohri, were found without tickets by the checking Staff. Likewise, 22 more passengers were found travelling without tickets. Thus, the workman was alleged to have defrauded the Corporation of sum of Rs.118/-. He filed reply to the charge-sheet and disputed the allegations levelled against him upon which a domestic inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure P2), vide which the charges levelled against the workman were found to have been proved. Thus, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 20.12.1999, ordered stoppage of his 4 annual increments with cumulative effect. And, as regards the period of suspension w.e.f. 17.06.1996 to 30.09.1996, he was only held entitled to the subsistence allowance. The statutory appeal preferred by the workman against the order of punishment was also dismissed on 29.08.2011. Whereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute. On a consideration of the matter as also the evidence on record, the Labour Court reached a conclusion that even though the appellant had held inquiry against the workman and he was given due opportunity to participate therein, but a bare analysis of the inquiry report would reveal that Inquiry Officer had apparently failed to justify the conclusion he had reached. The inquiry report would show that there was hardly any analysis of the evidence led by the parties to reach any conclusion either way. Thus, in reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors., 1985 3 SCC 378, it concluded that the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was wholly perverse. And as the order passed by the punishing Authority was predicated upon the said report that too was vitiated. Accordingly, the Labour Court, vide its award dated 29.11.2017, set aside the punishment imposed upon the workman. That is how, the appellant assailed the award dated 29.11.2017 vide writ petition referred to above. And even the learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter and evidence on record, concluded: