B. Ravinder vs The Presiding Officer,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4372 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.351 of 2019

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

17.09.2018

passed in W.P.No.2869 of 2007 by the learned

Single Judge.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before

this Court was involved in cash and ticket irregularities

(misappropriation) and the departmental enquiry took place.

The misconduct was proved and an order was passed on

17.04.2004 removing him from service. Being aggrieved by

the order of removal, he preferred an appeal and the same

was also rejected by the appellate authority and thereafter, he

took shelter of the Labour Court and preferred I.D.No.17 of

2005. The Labour Court after scanning the entire evidence

on record has passed an award dated 05.07.2006 declining

the prayer made by the appellant. A writ petition was

preferred challenging the award passed by the Labour Court

and before the learned Single Judge it was argued that the

punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of

the employee and the Labour Court should have exercised the

powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 by moderating the order of punishment.

The learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view in the

matter though it was a case of misappropriation and directed

reinstatement of the employee as fresh appointment. Now a

writ appeal has been filed in the matter and it has been

stated that the order passed by the learned Single Judge also

deserves to be set aside, as the benefit of past service has not

been granted by the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment

delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited

vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambala1 and his contention is that

keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, lesser punishment

should have been awarded. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has directed reinstatement without back

wages. The aforesaid case was not a case of

misappropriation. It was a case in which the workman was

found guilty of the indiscipline, absenteeism, reporting late to

work and therefore, based upon the aforesaid judgment, no

relief can be granted to the appellant/employee.

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the

judgment delivered in the case of Baldev Singh vs. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another2 and his

contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as

dismissal was harsh punishment the same was interfered

with. Hence, in the present case also the punishment is

disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent and therefore,

the same deserves to be interfered with. This Court has

(2009) 2 SCC 288

(1986) 4 SCC 519

carefully gone through the aforesaid case. The aforesaid case

was a case where the Driver was held responsible to cause

damage to the State Roadways to the extent of Rs.22.50. It

was not a case of misappropriation and therefore, again the

judgment does not help the appellant in any manner.

Reliance is also placed upon the judgment delivered in

the case of J.K. Synthetics Limited vs. K.P. Agrawal and

another3. It was again not a case of misappropriation and

therefore, this Court does not find any reason to grant relief

based upon the aforesaid judgment.

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment

delivered in the case of R. Rajender Singh vs. Depot

Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C4. In the aforesaid case continuity of

service was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the

considered opinion of this Court, the relief of granting

continuity of service can never be a mechanical exercise.

Each case has to be decided on the facts of the case and the

present case is a case of misappropriation/embezzlement and

therefore, the question of granting continuity of service/back

wages does not arise.

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments

delivered in the case of V.V.G. Reddy vs. Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad Region &

another5, U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Rajesh Kumar6,

(2007) 2 SCC 433

2000 SCC Labour and Service 1103

(2009) 2 SCC 668

P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs.

Raj Kumar7, State of Gujarat and another vs. Bhanji Gopal

Karchhar8, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Manglor vs.

Pahal Singh9, Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s. Delton Cable

India (P) Ltd.10, HUDA vs. Jagmal Singh11, Regional

Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma12, Pepsu Road

Transport Corporation vs. Rawel Singh13 and Uttar

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Nanhe Lal

Kushwaha14. This Court has carefully gone through the

judgments relied upon by the learned counsel, but the fact

remains that the employee was involved in cash and ticket

irregularities (misappropriation) and therefore, no further

relief can be granted to the employee. The learned Single

Judge has already taken a very lenient view in the matter by

directing the employer to issue a fresh employment.

Learned counsel has also argued that co-workman, who

was already charge sheeted, was punished with stoppage of

future increments. The order is on record at page No.40. The

same reveals that the co-employee was charge sheeted for

unruly behaviour and therefore, the question of interference

of this Court with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge does not arise. The present case is of misappropriation

(2003) 12 SCC 548

(2001) 2 SCC 54

(2016) 12 SCC 645

(2007) 12 SCC 193

(1984) 2 SCC 569

(2006) 5 SCC 764

(2002) 10 SCC 330

(2008) 4 SCC 42

(2009) 8 SCC 772

(cash and ticket irregularity). The petition preferred before

the Labour Court was dismissed. The Labour Court has

scanned the entire evidence. There was no irregularity in the

departmental enquiry. The learned Single Judge has already

taken a very lenient view in the matter by directing fresh

appointment to the employee. Hence, this Court does not

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 16.12.2021 ES