- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant was a conductor in KSRTC, KH Road, Bangalore. On 17-1-1985 at about 5.00 p.m. the checking staff intercepted the bus plying on route and found that there were 49 passengers in the bus but the appellant, the duty conductor, had not issued tickets to 8 passengers in spite of fare having been collected from them. The departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. While imposing such punishment the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration previous service history of the appellant wherein the appellant was found to have been involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature. Earlier the appellant was penalised even by imposing punishment of withholding of his increments and still the appellant did not show any sign of improvement.
(3.) The appellant put in issue the finding of departmental proceedings as also punishment imposed therein by raising an industrial dispute under S. 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act. The learned Labour Court found enquiry to be defective and gave the employer an opportunity of adducing evidence to substantiate the charges in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court also found the charge of misconduct proved. However, it formed an opinion that since the amount of defalcation involved in the incident dated 17th January, 1985 was small, penalty of dismissal would be too harsh. The Labour Court further held that considering the peculiarities and various factors of the present case, it would meet the ends of justice if the worker, the appellant was ordered to be reinstated subjecting him to punishment of loss of backwages and other consequential benefits. In spite of holding so vide para 15 of the award, while formulating the operative part of the award the Labour Court directed the appellant to continue in service, 'to be reinducted in the same post where he was working and where from he was removed with denial of two increments with cumulative effect.' The employer was also directed to pay the appellant-workman all his backwages along with consequential benefits and costs of the proceedings.;