- (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the award dated 19.8.2011 whereby reference has been answered against petitioner workman.
(2.) IT is a case where petitioner was served with charge sheet alleging misbehavior with the Inspection Party at the time of inspection of bus where passengers were travelling without tickets. Inquiry so conducted was held to be unfair, thus parties led their evidence to prove charges. On submission of the evidence, labour court came to the conclusion that charges against petitioner have been established thus, keeping in mind all other aspects, reference was answered against petitioner workman. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was charged twice; the amount of fare and later on an order of dismissal thus it is a case of double jeopardize but was ignored by the labour court. It is even against their own circular. Other argument is in reference to statement of driver where petitioner tried to establish demand of money by the Inspection Party and no incident of snatching of way-bill so as alleged misbehaviour with the Inspection Party. Last argument is of disproportionate punishment. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record carefully. First argument is regarding double jeopardize in reference to Annexure-9. I find that Annexure-9 is nothing but a way-bill prepared at the time of inspection. It does not show any punishment on the petitioner and in any case recovery of amount of fare with penal charges does not amount to penalty. Order of punishment was passed after holding proper enquiry though it was held to be unfair by the labour court but again with evidence led by the parties, charges were found proved. Looking to the facts given above, I am not impress by the first argument.
(3.) SECOND argument is in reference to issuance of circular by respondents indicating that if double amount is charged from the conductor to the amount of fare, then punishment of dismissal should not be passed. I find that aforesaid circular is not enforceable in the eyes of law and otherwise struck down by this Court. This is apart from the fact that in similar cases Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC Versus Ghanshyam Sharma reported in (2002) 10 SCC 330 answers not only second issue but even last issue regarding disproportionate punishment. Therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "4. This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside. 5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the Single Judge in the present case that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under Section 11-A the Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal." Other issue is in reference to finding of fact. The labour court discussed evidence led by parties and drawn its conclusion. Finding of fact has been questioned by petitioner without showing any perversity and otherwise it is a settled law that interference in award passed by labour court should not be made unless manifest error is shown therein. I do not find case of the nature to fall in the aforesaid category. In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ;