B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the Award of the labour court dated 2nd September, 1995 by which the application of the respondent to make correction in the earlier Award dated 19.9.1994 has been allowed and the matter has been decided afresh reviewing its earlier award and substituting the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 24.6.1989 by withholding the two annual increments without cumulative effect.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent workman had been employed as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation and he was served the charge-sheet for embezzlement of Rs. 9.70 as he had received the fare from the passenger and did not issue the tickets. After completing the departmental enquiry as he was found guilty, punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. The respondent workman raised the industrial dispute and the appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act 1947), made a reference vide order dated 19.5.1992 as to whether the removal of respondent workman from his services was improper and not in accordance with law, if yes, to what relief he was entitled to? In pursuance to the said reference, the claim petition was filed by the workman contending that while he was working as conductor it was alleged that in the checking it was found that there were only 16 passengers travelling in the bus out of which 9 persons were not having the tickets but the fare had already been charged by the workman. In view of the above, the enquiry was held which was not in accordance with law. More so the embezzlement, if any, was of a petty amount of Rs. 9.70, and therefore, the punishment of removal from service was not commensurate to the delinquency.
(3.) The management corporation contested the claim submitting that the enquiry was held in accordance with law. Workman was given full opportunity to defend himself and as it was a case of embezzlement minimum punishment which could be imposed was dismissal. Therefore, the Court should not interfere. The labour court after considering the evidence led by the parties recorded the finding of fact that enquiry had been held in accordance with law and workman had been given full opportunity to defend himself. Neither there was violation of any statutory provision nor of the principles of natural justice. While considering the quantum of punishment, the Court held that it was commensurate to the delinquency and no claim award was made on 19.9.1994. Subsequently, the respondent workman filed application dated 14.11.1996 under Section 6 (6) of the Act, 1947, for correction of the Award on various grounds, including that the finding of fact recorded by the labour court earlier that the enquiry had been held in accordance with law, was wrong. The said application was opposed by the management Corporation contending that under the garb of correction award cannot be reviewed. Once the Award stood published, the labour court becomes functus officio and such an application was not maintainable. However, vide order dated 2nd September, 1995, the Award has been reviewed and it has not been held that as no enquiry under Section 6 (2A) of the Act 1947 had been held, the Award required review and the punishment given was too harsh, and thus, it was substituted by withholding two annual increments of the workman without cumulative effect, hence this petition.;