HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21165 OF 2009
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Award dated 28.12.2007 in I.D. No. 145 of 20052 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad whereby petitioner - Corporation was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent (Ex.Conductor) together with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back-wages, this Writ Petition was filed by the Corporation.
2. It is stated that the 1st respondent while was conducting bus No. 230 on route 72J Charminar to Jaipuri Colony, on 20.04.2004, at about 15.15 hours, a check was exercised and it was found that he re-issued ticket of Rs.4/- denomination to a passenger after collecting fare of Rs.3/- at boarding point itself i.e. Nagole which was already issued at Stage No.5. Checking officials confronted the passenger to the 1st respondent and obtained his statement and witness statement of co-passengers. Based on the evidence on record and the spot explanation of 1st respondent, he was issued charge-memo. After completing formalities, he was removed from service by order dated 25.06.2004. Appeal and Review preferred thereagainst were rejected. Hence, Industrial Dispute was raised, wherein the Labour Court though held that domestic enquiry is valid, on erroneous 2 and perverse view of the matter, allowed the Petition in part and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service but without back-wages.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that finding of the Labour Court that overriding of passenger from stage No.5 as contended by the 1st respondent cannot be ruled out, is perverse and contrary to record as the passenger in his statement clearly stated that he boarded the bus at Nagole Stage No.3 bound to Jaipuri Colony. According to him, examination of ticketless passenger during the course of enquiry is not necessary and evidence of checking officials who checked the bus is sufficient. He submits that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, once a domestic Tribunal based on evidence on record comes to a particular conclusion, normally, it is not open to the Courts to substitute their subjective opinion and they shall be slow in re-appreciating the evidence. When no additional material was produced by the 1st respondent before the Labour Court to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the disciplinary authority, it ought not to have given such a finding, is what the learned Standing Counsel emphasizes.
4. As seen from the record, the charge levelled against the 1st respondent is that he reissued ticket of Rs.4/- denomination to a passenger who boarded the bus at Nagole 3 bound to Jaipuri Colony Ex-stages 3 to 3/1. On verification by the checking officials, it was found that said ticket was already accounted at stage No.5, therefore, it was deemed to have been re- issued by collecting Rs.3/- instead of Rs.4/-. The plea of the 1st respondent is that the passenger over-rided from stage No.5 and he did not notice. But the statement of passenger marked as Ex.M4 is otherwise, it shows that he boarded at Nagole i.e. stage No.3. If he boarded at stage No.5, as stated by the 1st respondent, the passenger would have admitted that. In this regard, the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent shows that passenger boarded the bus at MXT Colony stage No.6 and he issued a proper ticket and accounted in SR at stage No.5. He stated that the said passenger was threatened by the checking officials with dire consequences and under pressure, he forcibly offered his statement and attested the same. According to the 1st respondent, he issued 4 to 5 tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and SR also shows that he issued six tickets at stage No.5.
Admittedly, passenger was not examined before the Enquiry Officer though his statement was recorded by the checking officials on the spot which is fatal to the case of the Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel submits that examination of ticket-less passenger in the enquiry is not necessary, however, in the light of the mala fide attributed by the 1st respondent that passenger was threatened with imposing heavy penalty, he gave a 4 false statement that he boarded the bus at Nagole instead of University Colony, the Corporation ought to have taken care to rebut the same.
Further, the Labour Court observed that the 1st respondent joined service in 1979, his date of birth is 01.02.1954 i.e. he served the Corporation for a period of 27 years and was at fag-end of service. Since overriding cannot be ruled out, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained and the same is liable to set aside. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the Labour Court cannot be brushed aside. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned Award cannot be reviewed in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 15th September 2023 ksld