THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.633 OF 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order
dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10123 of 2004.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent No.1 was involved in a cash and ticket
irregularity. A charge memo was issued on 25.09.1996 and thereafter, an enquiry took place in the matter. As per the imputation of misconduct, while performing the duties on 25.09.1996, a surprise check was carried out and it was noticed that the respondent No.1 has taken money from the passengers, however has not issued the tickets. An order of removal was passed on 30.01.1997 and thereafter, the respondent No.1 has approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has passed an award dated 22.12.2003 directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1 into service within one month from the date of publication of the award and also directed that he shall be paid back wages to an extent of 25% within the same period, failing which he shall be entitled for interest 2 at the rate of 12% per annum thereafter till realisation and that he shall be entitled for continuity of service but without attendant benefits. The only reasoning assigned by the Labour Court for directing reinstatement along with back wages is that the respondent No.1 was appointed on 27.03.1996 and the surprise check took place on 25.09.1996 and as he was not having sufficient experience as a Conductor, he has not issued the tickets.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour Court was having powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to modify the punishment. But, this Court fails to understand as to why back wages have been granted to a person who was involved in cash and ticket irregularities. The appellant, being aggrieved by the award, has preferred a writ petition and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding the award only on the ground that no illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the matter.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that their grievance is only to the extent of back wages have been granted, as it will amount to granting a premium to an employee, who was involved in cash and ticket irregularities (misappropriation).
3
This Court, after careful consideration of the award passed by the Labour Court and also keeping in view the proved misconduct, is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 is certainly not at all entitled to back wages. Therefore, to that extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court is modified.
The writ appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.11.2021 vs