U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA

Judgment

1 S.C.R. 331 ). U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA (Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2009) AUGUST 04, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] A B t ~ .. -~ I> ¥' ",.\· U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - s. 11A - Power under- Interference with quantum of punishment - Conductor charged for carrying passengers wi(hout ticket on six c occasions - Removal from service - Labour court reinstating with 75.% back wages - High Court holding that employee not to be paid back wages but only retiral benefits - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - It must be spelt out in clear and cogent manner whether punishment is disproportionate to the 0 gravity of charge - High Court passed the order without discussing any materials on record and also principles of law - Employee charged for commission of misconduct on six occasions but found proved for two charges - Even though employee has already retired and has been found guilty of a E minor offence involving a small amount, order can be interfered with - Thus, order of High Court set aside. Respondent-conductor was charged for carrying passengers without tickets on six occasions. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was removed from service. Industrial dispute was raised. Labour court directed re-instatement from the date of removal of service with 75% back wages since misconduct was proved only on two occasion. Appellant- employer filed writ petition. Employee was re-instated and G has now retired from service. High Court modified the award to the extent that no back wages would be payable to the workman but would be given continuity of service F 331 H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A for the purpose of retiral benefits. Hence the present appeal. ~ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The industrial tribunal or a labour court B may interfere with a quantum of punishment awarded by the employer in exercise of its power under section 11 A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act but, ordinarily, the discretion exercised by the employer should not be interfered with. Labour Court did not assign any sufficient c and cogent reason as to on.what premise the punishment imposed upon the respondent by the employer can be said to be excessive, keeping in view the seriousness of the charges. The question as to whether an order of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charge D on the basis whereof the workman has been found to be guilty, must be spelt out in a clear and cogent manner. The practice adopted by the High Court, in disposing of writ petition without assigning any reason has been deprecated by this court number of times. [Para 7] [336- E B-E]

1.2. High Court despite noticing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, did not choose to deal therewith. It passed the operative portion of the order without discussing any mate.rials on record. Even the principles of law on the basis whereof the purported discretionary jurisdicti, on was sought to be exercised, was not stated. [Para 8] [33_6-F-G] F ~ I ~I I k •· • ,.. .

1.3. The submission that this Court in a situation G where the employee has already retired and he has been found guilty for commission of a minor offence, should not interfere with the impugned judgment cannot be accepted. As the respondent was appointed as a conductor it is not the amount which would be very H material for the purpose of determining the quantum of ~ "' U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 333 NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA punishment. He was charged for commission of similar A misconducts on six occasions; at least misconduct has been found to be proved in 'respect of two charges even by the labour court. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and set aside. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [341-G-H; 342-A-B] B } ~