RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. SUGNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Bikaner contained in Annexure, 3 to the writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, who was employed as a Conductor with the appellant Corporation was given a memo of charge on 6.6.1983, contained in Annexure. 1 to the petition, with the allegation that he was found carrying ten passengers without ticket and he had the intention to recover the charges of tickets from those passengers and misappropriate the said amount. The petitioner Corporation was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent No. 1 and subsequently a full -fledged enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted its report holding that the charges were proved against the contesting respondent and on the basis of the same, the competent Authority passed the order imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent No. 1 challenged the same in the Labour Court and the Labour Court, vide impugned Award dated 4.3.1994, contained in Annexure, 3, allowed the case of the delinquent employee and the punishment order was modified to the extent that stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was substituted by the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect and he was also allowed all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the petitioner Corporation has Corporation preferred the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner Corporation is that the Labour Court has categorically held that for the offence committed by the respondent No. 1, even a major penalty could have been imposed on him under Rule 36 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for Short, 'the Standing Orders'). However, placing the reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1990 (9) JT 70, the Labour Court has held that the punishment awarded by the Corporation was a major penalty and it could not have been imposed without supplying the copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee and, thus, the punishment imposing the major penalty was bad.