P.S.Naidu v. The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, and anr

Order

Challenging the Nil Award dated 24.08.2001 passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No. 141 of 1998, the petitioner-workman filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor the second respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in the year 1978. While so, he was charged sheeted on 19.2.1997 on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities said to have been committed by him while he was conducting bus service on en route Kurnool—Madras. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. After conducting due enquiry, the APSRTC removed the petitioner from service by order dated 18.8.1997. The appeal and thereafter review filed by petitioner ended in rejection. Thereupon, he invoked the provisions under Section 2-(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No. 141 of

1998 before the first respondent-Labour Court. The Labour Court, upon elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, dismissed the ID by Award dated 24.08.2001. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman submitted that the Labour Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the proper perspective. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and are clearly opposed to the evidence on record. He argued that the Enquiry Officer had not followed the due procedure in conducting the enquiry and that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner-workman is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against him. It is well settled that the findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ court to warrant interference with those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose, even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possible be taken. The only course, therefore, open to the writ Court was to find out the satisfaction or otherwise of the relevant criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard, before sustaining the claim of the workman, on the facts found and recorded by the fact-finding authority and not embark upon an exercise of reassessing the evidence and arriving findings of its own, altogether giving a complete go-by even to the facts specifically found by the Labour Court. In the case on hand, it was found that the petitioner having collected Rs.66/- each issued four unconnected tickets of Rs.60/- and Rs.6/- denominations to four passengers and that the petitioner sold out eleven tickets of Rs.60/- denominations which were not in use and unconnected to the service Way Bill. It was found that the alleged ticket block which was lost at Adoni on 16.12.1996 were found later in the tray box provided to the petitioner at Kurnool depot. He did not show the stolen block number in the way bill or bring to the notice of the superiors. Albeit he had entered the alleged ticket numbers in the SR, he failed to remit the amount to the APSRTC. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner alleged Rs.60/- denominnation tickets and misappropriated the same. It was the case of the APSRTC as well as the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner with preplanned motive sold out the alleged tickets during his duty and thereby committed serious misconduct as enumerated under various clauses of Regulation 28 of the APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations. Considering the material placed on record, I do not find any legitimate reason to interfere with the said finding recorded by the Labour Court as misconduct committed and proved on the part of the petitioner. That being so, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be countenanced. As the petitioner failed to plead before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the same cannot be permitted to be pressed into service before this Court. As regards the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him is concerned, law on this point is well settled that once the workman is found guilty of charges levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and also failure to discharge his fiduciary obligations towards the employer- APSRTC, the strictest punishment is called for and there would be no room for lenience or application of the doctrine of proportionality. A reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti Lal {(2003) 3 SCC 605} wherein it was held as follows: “………..It performed is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of relevant circumstances which go into the decision- making process while considering whether disproportionate. If the charged employee proportionate punishment similar inbuilt requirements leniently. Misconduct holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity functioning, it would not be proper to deal with in such the matter cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity unexceptionable…….” trust-worthiness is must Furthermore, once the misconduct is established, the maximum punishment stipulated therefor can be awarded. In doing so, the past conduct of the petitioner can be taken into consideration which was rightly applied by the APSRTC in imposing the punishment upon the petitioner. Considering the evidence on record the Labour Court rightly recorded the findings under the impugned Award, which is impeccable. Thus, the punishment imposed upon petitioner is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Labour Court does not call for interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 11th October, 2011. Msnro