ATMA SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY impugned order, the workman's claims to reinstatement and back wages were refused. The workman was a Conductor in PRTC, Patiala and the charge against him was that on 23rd September 1981, the Conductor had collected money from passengers but he had not issued tickets and in the process, the Conductor had misappropriated Rs. 46.40. A charge -sheet had been issued and an enquiry was constituted for the proof of misconduct. Before the Enquiry Officer, two Checking Inspectors and the Superintendent of the Corporation had been examined. The Checking Inspectors gave evidence to the effect that they had noticed that there were 62 passengers, 30 of whom had not purchased tickets and unpunched tickets to the value of Rs. 46.40 had been collected from the Conductor and that he had violated the rules of the Corporation by collecting money and not issuing tickets. The cross -examination had been to the effect that the Inspector had not taken any statement from any of the passengers and that he did not check whether the cash collected by the Conductor.

(2.) BOTH of the management witnesses stated that they had not taken any statement from the passengers nor did they check the cash. On the side of the workman, the workman examined himself to the effect that on that day, there was a procession of supporters of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and the persons, who boarded the bus were participants in the rally. The bus was jam packed and there were about 30 passengers over the roof of the bus. Many of them refused to buy tickets and when the Conductor asked the Driver that the bus be driven back to the Depot, the unruly passengers threatened that they would set fire to the bus and they also refused to purchase the tickets. This version was also affirmed by the Driver. One of the passengers in the bus was also examined to testify to the fulminating atmosphere in the bus and how many passengers refused to purchase tickets.

(3.) THE Labour Court addressed the issue from the stand -point of what was contained in the claim statement namely that the workman had contended that there had been no notice and there was no enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and the workman had also admitted that he had participated in the enquiry. The Labour Court, therefore, went on to observe that the Conductor, who had participated in the enquiry had emboldened himself to state in his claim statement that there was no enquiry and that the workman had not come to the Court with clean hands. The Court was not granting any discretionary relief but was deciding a pointed reference whether the enquiry had been fair and proper and whether the termination was justified or not. Although so stated in the claim statement, parties knew and joined issues on the fact that there was an enquiry and the question for adjudication was whether it was fair and proper. The procedural aspect of the fair opportunity was easily available but it answers only one portion of an adjudication. Whether such an enquiry yielded to just result by a judicial appreciation of the evidence tendered the Enquiry Officer is verily an aspect which the Labour Court must consider. The scope of enquiry before the Labour Court in a case where it had to deal with the fairness and propriety of an enquiry was spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India versus The Management and others : AIR 1973 S.C. 1227. Paragraphs 32 and 37 in the judgement are instructive as to the scope of the power of the Labour Court and the extent of interference that it could make on the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The relevant portions are :