- (1.) This petition has been moved by Gurdev Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 12.3.1987 Annexure P.5.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 6.3.1977 when the bus was being conducted by the petitioner, the bus was overloaded and three passengers had neither paid any fare nor tickets were issued. The Inspectors had charged double fare from the passengers. Further on 8.4.1977 as alleged, the petitioner collected 35 paise from each of the six passengers amounting to Rs. 2.10. The passengers were still to be issued tickets. As alleged, because of the inimical attitude of the Inspectors, the unpunched tickets were forcibly collected by them from the petitioner. Further, as alleged, on 6.7.1977, the passengers were issued tickets by the Adda Conductor from the advance booking window. The passengers had not got issued one half ticket from the advance booking window. The non issuing of the half ticket to the passenger thus cannot be treated as a fault of the Conductor. On 15.7.1977 as alleged, the petitioner had charged 10 paise excess from the passenger who was still travelling in the bus. The amount could be returned to him and there was no question of excess charge of 10 paise. As alleged, it was a fit case where even if the inquiry was proved to be valid, the Labour Court was required under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') to have interfered therewith. An inquiry was ordered against the petitioner. On the basis of the so-called inquiry, his services were terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. Admittedly, no cash was checked nor the petitioner was confronted with the statements of the passengers at the time of checking. The guidelines issued by the Director State Transport to be observed by the checking staff had not been complied with at all. It was incumbent upon the checking staff to refer the statements of the witnesses or to confront the petitioner with any of the passengers to prove the case. The failure to do so amounted to the case of no evidence. The compliance of Rule 8.11 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Civil Service Rules') has not been made by the Inquiry Officer though it was mandatory. The petitioner, a semi literate person being not conversant with the inquiry proceedings should have been provided the assistance of a coworker or the lawyer in the case. He was not aware of his such right and thus prejudice has been occasioned to him by not providing the assistance of the co-worker and as such the inquiry ought to have been quashed. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be allowed on the grounds embodied therein.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been held that the Labour Court, Bhatinda rightly held that the inquiry was fair and proper. There is no evidence that the workman/petitioner sought the assistance of a co-worker and the Inquiry Officer declined it. The services of the petitioner were terminated on the allegations and charges that while he was on duty, he was detected by the Inspectorate Staff defrauding the revenue of Punjab Roadways including the passengers tax by way of charging requisite fare from them but not willfully and intentionally issuing them tickets in lieu of the fare charged. Traversing other pleas in the petition, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs.;