- (1.) Rule returnable today. Mr.Rathod, learned Advocate, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
(2.) The Labour Court has misapplied the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, by passing a reinstatement order in favour of the workman, which has resulted in filing of this petition at the hands of the S.T. Corporation.
(3.) The respondent-workman was serving as a Conductor in the S.T. Corporation. He was on duty on 22.2.1994, on an S.T. bus, which was plying on 28-29 route. At the time of checking of the said bus, it was found that, even though the respondent collected Rs.60/- towards fare, he had not issued tickets to the passengers. After recording the statements of some passengers and after considering the documentary evidence on record, he was charge-sheeted by the S.T. Corporation. He was subjected to three charges, viz., (i) not issuing tickets in spite of recovering advance fare of Rs.60/- from the passengers, (ii) that he has closed the numbers of Way Bill from 075 to 200; and (iii) that he has not deposited the way bill in the depot and has destroyed the same. On the basis of the same, he was subjected to a department enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The respondent thereafter challenged the said dismissal, by raising an Industrial Dispute, being Reference (LCA) No.677 of 1997. While partly allowing the said Reference, the Labour Court came to the conclusion, that at the time of checking by the Checking Staff, the Conductor was already undertaking the process of issuing tickets and, accordingly, the charge that he had not issued tickets, after getting fare, cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Labour Court also believed that even though he was required to issue tickets after recovering the fare, he had not done the same and he has tried to destroy the evidence. This part is reflected at page 6 in the Award of the Labour Court (page 16 of the compilation). However, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the punishment of removal was on a higher side. The Labour Court has also found that, even in past, on 24 occasions, the workman was found to have committed misconduct. After observing the same, the learned Judge has further observed that, ultimately, if the concerned workman is reinstated in service, with a punishment of withholding of three increments with future effect, that would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Labour Court reinstated the concerned workman by inflicting punishment of withholding of three increments with future effect. It is this order which is under challenge at the instance of the S.T. Corporation.;