- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against award dated 5-11-1998 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 1998. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was to the effect that as to whether the action of petitioner-employer terminating the services of its workman Mohan Lal - respondent No. 1 through order dated 11-9-1996 was proper and valid or not.
(2.) MOHAN Lal was conductor. His services were terminated on 11-9-1996 after full fledged domestic enquiry. The Labour Court clearly held that the domestic enquiry was fair. The allegation against respondent No. 1 was that on 8-5-1994 he was found carrying passengers without ticket during surprise checking. The further allegation against respondent no. 1 was that at the time of checking respondent no. 1 did not open the passengers' gate and ran away from the driver's window and on the basis of inspection alongwith police help it was found that 40 passengers were travelling without ticket. First information Report was also lodged with the police station. Respondent No. 1 admitted that at the time of inspection he was not present in the bus. He tendered a lame excuse that he had suddenly fallen ill hence he had left the bus. The Labour Court in para-9 clearly held that Assistant Regional manager gave his statement in the enquiry and the workman inspite of full opportunity did not cross examine him. Traffic Inspector, Shri Dubey was cross-examined by the respondent No. 1 and respondent no. 1 was also provided opportunity to cross-examine the driver. The driver stated that the conductor (i. e. respondent No. 1) ran away from the bus when he saw the checking squad. Driver stated that he gave the statement after coming to Jhansi as on the spot passengers were making lot of noise. Labour Court gave a very strange reason of disbelieving the version of the driver. Labour Court held that if the conductor was running away then the driver should have stopped him. This is not the duty of the driver. During enquiry it was found that 40 passengers had paid the fair but ticket had not been issued to them. Labour Court also held that the charges were not proved because none of the passengers was examined. Ultimately, Labour court held that none of the charges was proved. Accordingly, Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages.
(3.) IN my opinion the, view of the Labour Court is utterly erroneous in law. After holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and full opportunity had been given to the workman, the scope of interference by the Labour Court was very limited. Either the labour Court could interfere in the quantum of punishment if it was grossly disproportionate br it could reverse the finding of enquiry officer regarding misconduct if there was no evidence to support the said finding. This is what has been stated by the supreme Court in the authority of The Workman of firestone Tyre and Rubber v. Management, 1973 (26) FLR 359, cited by learned Counsel for workman. However, in the instant case there was ample evidence to justify the finding of misconduct by the enquiry officer. In this regard following authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the employer-petitioner are quite relevant : (1) General Secretary S. I. C. Factories Workers union v. M. D. K. S. C. Devpt. Corpn. , 2006 (110) FLR 492 (SC ). In this case Supreme court has held that if enquiry is fair and proper and there is no allegation of victimisation or unfair labour practices, labour Court has no power to interfere with punishment imposed. (2) Divisional Controller K. S. R. T. C (N. W. K. R. T. C.)v. A. T. Mane, 2004 (103) FLR 428 (SC ). In the said case also Labour Court had held that the enquiry was fair and proper still labour Court had interfered in the findings of enquiry officer on the ground that the amount of Rs. 93 recovered from the conductor was quite small. In the said authority the Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier authority in State of Haryana v. Rattan singh, 1977 (34) FLR 264 (SC ). In the said authority it was held that: "the simple point in all these cases is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence, not in the sense of the technical rules governing Court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny by court. . . " in the said case it was held that evidence of inspector was some evidence and it was not necessary to examine ticketless passengers. In the said authority of A. T. Mane also Labour Court had set aside the punishment order on the ground that passengers were not examined. The Supreme Court set aside the award of reinstatement given by the labour Court as confirmed by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court. (3) Employers' Management Colliery v. Bihar colliery Kamgar Union, 2005 (104) FLR 1224 (SC): 2005 (27) AIC 27 (SC ). In the said authority it was held that Labour Court, single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court wrongly interfered in the punishment order awarded by the Management after domestic enquiry. ;