P.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.) The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, dated 30.3.1995 in Reference (ITR) No.44 of 1993. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has interfered with the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority, by which the respondent-workman was subjected to the penalty of reducing his pay scale to minimum, was set aside and, instead, the Tribunal, while exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with future effect. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Industrial Tribunal, the S.T. Corporation has approached this Court by way of this petition.
(2.) The respondent-workman, at the relevant time, was serving as a Conductor and as a Conductor, he was duty bound to collect the fare from the passengers and was expected to be honest and sincere towards his employer in collecting the fare and to deposit the same to his employer, i.e. the S.T. Corporation. On the relevant day, i.e. on 3.8.1982, he was on duty as a Conductor on a bus which was proceeding to Rajula from Jaffrabad and during the course of the journey, the bus was intercepted by the Officer of the S.T. Corporation for the purpose of checking. At that time, it was noticed that the respondent-workman had collected fare from 17 passengers, but, in turn, he had not issued tickets to them. In view of the said incident, he was subjected to a charge-sheet. Subsequently, after concluding the departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 18.10.1982, passed an order of dismissal against the said workman. The said dismissal order was challenged by the respondent-workman by filing departmental appeal which was also dismissed. Therafter, he carried the matter before the second Appellate Authority of the S.T. Corporation. The second Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal partly and passed an order of reinstating the aforesaid workman to his original post of Conductor and the appellate authority substituted the penalty of the Disciplinary Authority by reinstating the said person on the minimum pay scale. The appellate authority passed the aforesaid order on 6.9.1984. Thereafter, after a considerable period, the respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute and, ultimately, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which was originally numbered as Reference (ITR) No. 98 of 1988, and remembered as Reference (I.T.R.) No.44 of 1993. The Tribunal, ultimately, as stated above, interfered with the aforesaid punishment order imposed by the second appellate authority of the S.T. Corporation and inflicted penalty of withholding of two increments with future effect.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, Ms. Krina Thakker vehemently argued that the Industrial Tribunal has committed a grave error of law as well as of jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the appellate authority of the S.T. Corporation. It is submitted by her that the appellate authority itself has taken a very lenient view of the matter as the appellate authority itself has saved the employment of the concerned workman by reinstating him in service. Under the said circumstances, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to again interfere with the said punishment by substituting the penalty imposed by the appellate authority of the Corporation and by reducing the penalty imposed by the appellate authority to withholding of two increments with future effect. It is also submitted by her that it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the S.T. Corporation is such that it deserves any interference at the hands of the Tribunal by invoking Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel also further submitted that even considering the past record of the concerned workman, which is annexed along with the petition at page 22, even in past, the workman had indulged in seven acts of misconduct of similar type, which are pertaining to the financial irregularity on the part of the respondent-workman and in her submission, the aforesaid record was also made available to the Tribunal. Still, the Tribunal interfered with the ultimate penalty and substituted the penalty imposed by the appellate authority and, therefore, according to her, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and that of the appellate authority of the Corporation is required to be restored.;