BABULAL SONI Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was served with a charge sheet on December 27, 1982 for an incident of September 28, 1982. The allegation has been that while working as Booking Clerk the petitioner has charged 50 paise more from fifteen passengers thereby collecting Rs. 7.50 in excess. On the basis of the above charge sheet a punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated September 27, 1984. The remaining salary for the period of suspension had also been forfeited. A dispute was raised on behalf of the petitioner by the Union and the same was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur by the State Government vide notification dated June 12, 1989. The Tribunal while holding the de-partmental enquiry to be fair and proper did not interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide award dated May 7, 1992 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award.

(3.) The Tribunal prima facie appears to have been swayed by the notion that no in-terference can be made in such punishments under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, a close scrutiny of the record would show that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved at all. Admittedly, the petitioner had been working as Booking Clerk. The tickets were issued to fifteen passengers at the bus stand. The allegation is that the petitioner had collected 50 paisa in excess from each of them at the time of issuing the tickets. None of the passengers made any complaint at the bus stand after getting tickets from the petitioner. Even no such complaint was made to the conductor or driver of the bus before departure of the bus. It was only on way when the bus was checked by the checking party, some of the passengers made complaint that they had paid 50 paisa more to the Booking Clerk. None of the passengers have been produced either before the enquiry officer or even the Tribunal. There is also no material on record to show that the cash was also checked at the main bus stand and Rs. 7.50 were found excess with the petitioner which he could not satisfactorily explain. In absence of any cogent evidence, in my opinion, the charge levelled against the petitioner on the face of it appears to be baseless and without any substance not to say of the same having been proved in the departmental enquiry. The Tribunal has passed the award in a very casual and cursory manner. The Tribunal in a reference case ought to have gone into merits after scrutinizing the material on record. In view of observations made above, since no charge has been proved, the award cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The incident is of the year 1982. The reference was made in the year 1989 and the award was passed in the year 1992. Since the charge against the petitioner has not been proved at all, I find no justification for reminding the matter back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh award.