Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Rajasthan, Jaipur v. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma & Mr.Ashok Bansal, for appellant. Mr.Mahendra Shah, for respondent. BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE JAIN. J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order of Single Bench dated 9th September, 2005, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant against award of Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 22nd April, 1992, has been dismissed. 2 SAW No.902/06

3. The State Government vide its notification dated

16.4.1991 made a reference under Section 10(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as to whether non grant of equal pay for equal work to workman and termination order of workman Shri Umesh Chand Sharma is legal and valid, if not, to what extent, the workman is entitled for relief?

4. The General Secretary, Transport Works Union (on behalf of workman) filed statement of demand, wherein it was stated that Shri Umesh Chand Sharma was selected against permanent post of Conductor and was appointed on 6th February, 1984 and his services were terminated without any reason and enquiry on 16th July, 1984.

5. The employer filed its written reply, wherein it was submitted that on 15th July, 1984, the bus of workman was checked and it was found that he was carrying six and half passengers without ticket and he was in drunken condition. It was also stated that workman was only a daily wage conductor and was not entitled for any regular pay scale. He was not appointed as a regular conductor. It was also stated that workman was retrenched without any domestic enquiry, therefore, a permission may be granted for enquiry also.

6. The Industrial Tribunal granted permission to prove the misconduct of the workman vide order dated 1st January,

1992. The workman filed a written application, wherein he accepted the charge, therefore, on the basis of admission the misconduct was found to be proved.

7. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 22nd April, 3 SAW No.902/06 1992 set aside the order of termination of service of workman and awarded penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It was also ordered that workman will not be entitled to any salary from 16th July, 1984 to 29th September, 1988 and further that he will be entitled only for 50% salary from 30th September, 1988 till the date of joining in service. The said award was challenged by appellant before Single Bench by way of writ petition, which has been dismissed, hence, employer has preferred this intra court appeal.

8. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that workman/respondent No.2, who was holding the post of Conductor, was found guilty in enquiry before the Tribunal. He admitted his guilt and on that basis, a finding was recorded that he is found guilty of the charge. It was submitted that since workman was found guilty of charges, therefore, the order of termination of workman passed by employer should not have been interferred with by Tribunal. In support of his submission, learned counsel for appellant relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in A.P. SRTC vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555, Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012), 1 SCC 442, & Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 LLR 259.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 defended the impugned order passed by Single Bench as well as award of 4 SAW No.902/06 Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned order as well as award passed by Tribunal and other documents available on record.

11. From the statement of demand(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) filed before Industrial Tribunal, it is clear that respondent No.2 was appointed on 6th February, 1984 and his services were terminated on 16th July, 1984 and during this period of about five months and ten days, it was found that on 15th July, 1984, he was carrying six and half passengers without ticket in bus. His services were terminated on 16th July, 1984. Since services were terminated without any enquiry, therefore, prayer was made before Tribunal for enquiry. The prayer was allowed. The enquiry was made. The workman admitted the guilt in writing, therefore, a finding was recorded that misconduct is proved against workman.

12. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001 LLR 259, the Apex Court has taken a view that in the case of such a misconduct of charging less fare, was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that respondent was not fit to be retained as conductor because such action or inaction on his part is bound to result in financial loss to appellant-Corporation. Reinstatement could not have been ordered.

13. In A.P. SRTC vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222, the Apex Court has laid down that when there is a loss of confidence, reinstatement is not appropriate. It was a case of theft, the punishment could not have been 5 SAW No.902/06 modified.

14. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555, the Apex Court laid down that in a case of corruption/misappropriation, punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, the only punishment for corruption/ misappropriation is dismissal. The Apex Court has laid down thus :- “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari (1996) 2 SCC 714 this Court held as under: (SCC p.715, para 4) “4. ... In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption, there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.” Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam (1976 ) 3 SCC 71, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 370, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha (2000) 7 SCC 517, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 and Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002) 10 SCC 330.