THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.648 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The appellant before this Court, APSRTC (now known as
'TSRTC'), has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order
dated 13.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10140 of 2000.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent
No.1/employee was serving on the post of conductor and an inspection took place on 05.11.1991. The appellant/employer, on account of alleged cash and ticket irregularities, issued a charge sheet and after conducting a detailed enquiry, passed an order of removal on 02.06.1992. The respondent No.1/employee raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and the Labour Court finally passed an award directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee into service with 50% back wages, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act. The appellant/employer, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, has preferred the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
The undisputed facts of the case, as reflected from the award passed by the Labour Court, reveal that the driver of the bus was forced to give statement against the conductor, who is respondent No.1 in the present case, and even some of the passengers have stated before the Enquiry Officer that they were forced to give 2 statement against the conductor in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has taken into account all the aforesaid aspects while interfering with the quantum of punishment, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
"I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record.
The charge purported to have been proved as per the findings recorded by the Labour Court is that the respondent- workman failed to issue tickets to 23 passengers who boarded the bus at Quilaspur and found alighting at Raghunathpalli, ex-stages 5 to 4 even after collecting the requisite fare amount at the boarding itself. But the statement of the Service Driver would indicate that the passengers were threatened by TTIs to give a statement that they have paid money to the Conductor at the boarding point itself, otherwise they will be taken to Police Station for taking appropriate action against them. In fact, it is also the case of respondent-workman al-through including in the spot statement that a false case has been foisted against him. Under those circumstances, in view of the evidence of Service Driver, the Labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the charges are foisted against the workman, but some how, also recorded that the said findings are proved, which is inconsistent.
Be that as it may, the passengers were said to have been boarded in between ex-stages 4 and 5 and found alighting at Raghunathpalli, ex-stage No.4, that itself indicate that there was no much distance between their boarding and alighting points. May be, there was some mistake on the part of Conductor in not collecting fare immediately and issuing tickets, but the version of TTIs that against 23 individual passengers, workman having collected money, did not issue tickets seems to be unreasonable. Be that as it may, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, came to conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct, and directed reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and 50% of backwages and further directed the management to impose stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award 3 passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmities calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
In the light of the aforesaid, as the witnesses gave the statement in the departmental enquiry under coercion, the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1/employee into service with 50% of back wages, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Act. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 29.12.2021 JSU