RSRTC Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as petitioner Corporation) challenging the award dated 20th April, 1991 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of termination of the second respondent Shri Surendra Pal Garg dated 21.6.84 and directed to reinstate him with 75% back wages.

(2.) The second respondent was appointed as conductor by order dated 14.9.83. His appointment was temporary on daily rate basis with the condition inter alia that he would issue tickets to the passengers and would not permit ticket less travelling, necessary entries would be made in the way bill and he shall issue tickets to all the passengers before the vehicle moves out from the bus stand of the Corporation. It was also specifically stipulated that if he is found involved in corrupt practice, his services will liable to be terminated. It is alleged that on 10.4.84 he was found carrying a child passenger without ticket from whom he has realised the amount but has not issued ticket. The respondent was advised not to indulge in such activities. It is further alleged that on 21.6.84 he was caught carrying 71/2 ticket less passengers and 360 Kg. luggage at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) on route Delhi-Hanumangarh Ganganagar, as result thereof, the Corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 1189.90. The way-bill was seized and checking report was also prepared. Accordingly, in terms of letter of appointment, his services were terminated on the same day. The respondent raised industrial dispute which was referred to labour court, Bikaner.

(3.) The labour court found that order of termination was illegal for the reason that no inquiry was conducted before holding him guilty of misconduct. The court also found that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days and as such it was incumbent on the Corporation to comply with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found the order of termination in violation of Provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. With respect to the back wages in the opinion of the learned Judge as there was delay in raising the industrial dispute, as such the workman was not entitled to the full back wages. He accordingly, directed to deduct 25% of the wages.