- (1.) BASED on the proved charge of reissuing of four tickets worth Rs. 30/ - and on the charge of destroying the way bill, the workman -conductor was dismissed from service. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the workman filed petition under Sec -tion 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper, concluded that the charges levelled against the workman were not proved. However, looking to the previous history of the workman, the Labour Court withheld backwages and also ordered that the workman is not entitled for continuity of service.
(2.) THE records disclose that the two charges were framed against the workman i.e., (a) The workman destroyed the waybill at the time of checking and (b) The workman had re -issued four tickets worth Rs. 30/ - each to four passengers at the time of checking. I was taken through the material on record including the judgment of the Labour Court. The management witness has admitted in his evidence that the checking officials took the tickets and the way bill at the time of checking. This admission of the management witness disproves the first charge levelled against the workman. Moreover, the two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman have specifically deposed that the checking officials took away the way bill along with ticket tray. Thus the Labour Court is justified in holding that the first charge levelled against the workman that the way bill was destroyed by the workman is not proved. However, in my considered opinion, the reasoning assigned and conclusion arrived by the Labour Court that the second charge levelled against the workman is not proved, could not be correct under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) EX -M4 is the statement of passengers, which discloses amply that the conductor issued the tickets to the passengers, which are later seized by the checking officials. The tickets issued to four passengers were found to be old tickets, which were re -circulated by the workman. The Labour Court has assessed the material on record as if it is criminal case. The Labour Court should have come to the conclusion based on preponderance and probabilities. The assessment of evidence by the Labour Court on charge No.2 is not just and fair. On reassessing the material, I find that finding of Labour Court on charge No.2 is not correct. Consequently the finding arrived by the Labour Court on charge No.2 is liable to be set aside. At this stage, both the learned advocates submit that the workman is already reinstated since 15th December 2003 in terms of Award of Labour Court. Hence the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is not interfered with. As the Labour Court has already denied continuity of service and backwages, the same may be reasonable and proper punishment under the facts and circumstances of the case.;