HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was employed as a Conductor with the Punjab Roadways. He collected fare from the passengers but did not issue the tickets. The default having been noticed, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. A domestic enquiry was ordered. The charge was proved. He was ordered to be dismissed from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. After recording evidence the Labour Court found that a fair and proper enquiry had been held. The workman had been given full opportunity to defend himself and produce evidence. However, taking the view : that the workman had committed fraud in respect of paltry sum of Rs. 9. 70 the Court held that the punishment was too severe. It, thus, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondent-State of Punjab to give him a fresh appointment.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this award the State of Punjab filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that 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. " It was further held that the award given by the Labour Court in July 1981 having "remained stayed all this time. . . . . . . . . I do not think it would be in the interest of industrial relations to bring him back in the service after a lapse of more than a decade. " Thus, the award was set aside.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge the workman has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the amount being too small and the Labour Court having exercised its discretion, the High Court should not have interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Workmen of MI, Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India P. Ltd. v. The Management, (1973-I-LLJ-279 ).