RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. ASRAR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the Award dated April 25, 1990, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Labour Court, though maintained the respondent No. 1 Asrar Mohammed guilty, but setaside the order of dismissal from service and gave last opportunity to the respondent No.l Asrar Mohammed and ordered for the reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service, but without any back wages.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 Asrar Mohammed was working as the Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and on June 3, 1984, when his bus No. 6531, on which he was posted as the Conductor, was checked by the Transport Inspector Prahlad Singh and Rameshwar Dayal, nine passengers were found without tickets in the bus. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 1 Asrar Mohammed and the charge-sheet was served upon him and after holding the departmental enquiry, the charges against the respondent No. 1 were found proved. The Management, therefore, passed an order removing Asrar Mohammed from service. A dispute was raised and the Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court: D;k laHkkx---(In Hindi--Illegible)

(3.) Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act gives powers to the Labour Court where the industrial dispute relating to the discharge or removal of the workman is referred to it, to setaside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit and it can give any relief to the workman including the lesser punishment in view of the facts and circumstances of the case If the Labour Court is satisfied that the order of discharge or removal or dismissal was not justified. Though wide discretionary powers vest with the Labour Court to Interfere in the matter of imposition of punishment but while exercising the discretionary power to interfere with the punishment, the discretion should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner, and it should be exercised in judicious manner. Before interfering with the punishment, imposed by the Management, the Labour Court, is expected to take into consideration all the relevant facts and should interfere with the punishment Imposed by the Management only when it comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is extremely harsh and unjust and wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The power of the Labour Court under Section 11(a) of the Act is not uncanalised, unguided and unlimited and the Labour Court cannot function arbitrarily and interfere with every decision of the Management regarding dismissal or discharge of the workman, arrived at in the disciplinary enquiry. Before setting-aside the order of dismissal or removal from service and awarding a lesser punishment, the Labour Court has to satisfy itself that the punishment imposed by the Management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned and in coming to that conclusion, the Court is expected to give reasons for its decision. As the decision of the Labour Court is subject to judicial review by the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court (see Christan Medical College Hospital Employees Union and Anr. v. Christian Medical College, Vellore Association and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5523-25 of 1986 reported in,1988 1 LLJ 263 SC , the discretion vested in the Labour Court has to be exercised in a judicious manner and in accordance with the well recognised principle in that regard. The test is not as to whether the punishment is too harsh or disproportionate with the proved act of misconduct but the test is whether the punishment in commensorate with the act of misconduct and is not in fair. Now, in the present case, though the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was found guilty previously at nine occasions and the punishment of warning and removal from service were, also, passed, which fact has been admitted by the workman himself in his statement before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal, set-aside the order of removal or dismissal and ordered for the reinstatement of the workman, only on the ground that the last opportunity may be given to the workman. When the workman (respondent No. 2) did not mend himself on last nine occasions and again repeated the same performance, he was not entitled for any leniency or the lesser punishment. While examining the case of a person for imposing the punishment after the charges of misappropriation etc. stook proved against the workman, who is holding a sensitive post of a trust, the case has to be viewed in a different light. Misappropriation by a bus conductor must be viewed with a degree of seriousness, especially having regard to the fact that it will make successful working of the State Road Transport Corporation impossible and where a case of misappropriation by a conductor is detected and he is found guilty then the punishment must be deterrent to him as, also, to others as the misappropriation in such circumstances would be in relation to public money and the burden would fall on the shoulder of the public at large. The reinstatement of a bus conductor, who has pocketed the money without issuing tickets to the passengers, would enable him to indulge in same mal-practice in future, also, as he has to collect fare and issue tickets on each and every day and, therefore, his reinstatement would, therefore, involve great risk because of 'the repeated opportunities are made available to him. The workman was found guilty for the same offence earlier at nine times, but he did not care to mend himself and, therefore, in my view, the Labour Court was not Justified in reinstating the respondent No. 1 Asrar Mohammed, who had collected the fare, pocketed the same and robbed the national exchequere.