- (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to challenge the award dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') whereby the Labour Court answered the reference, as to the validity of the penalty order of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect as well as warning awarded to the petitioner, against the petitioner and in favour of the management- corporation. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver in the year 1999. On 10.3.2006 the petitioner was doing his duty on Aligarh to Ajmer Route and he completed his duty at Ajmer. At that time one Om Prakash Jaipuriya, who was conductor of the bus on the route, made a false complaint against the petitioner to the Chief Manager of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Depot, Ajmer alleging that on 10.3.2006 he was doing his duty as conductor on Vehicle No. 4906 and the petitioner was working as driver who forced him for committing the theft of Corporation and thereby demanded money, but when he refused to do so, he was subjected to beatings and threatening of dire consequences. He further alleged that the incident took place in front of the room of Traffic Manager at the bus stand and at that time Shakha Palak Manohar and Bahadur Singh were present. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.3.2006 by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice denying all the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 issued a charge sheet on 25.4.2006 against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 appointed Shri Jaidev Sankhla, Depot Manager as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 20.5.2006 and ultimately Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma, Manager, Administration was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter. Thereafter, on completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report which was sent to the petitioner vide notice dated 3.9.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner sent written statement on 16.9.2009. The Chief Manager of the Corporation issued an order dated 24.9.2009 imposing a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect as also with penalty of warning. Against order dated 24.9.2009, petitioner submitted an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 6.11.2009 on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. On receipt of failure report, the Labour Department referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner filed his statement of claim contending that the enquiry officer with a mala fide intention did not record the evidence of complainant in the presence of the petitioner and did not provide opportunity of cross examination to him. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the Respondent No. 2 denying all the averments made by the petitioner. The Labour Court after hearing arguments of the parties vide award dated 11.2.2013 answered the reference against the petitioner and in favour of the management. Being aggrieved by the award dated 11.2.2013, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has assailed the award of the Labour Court as also the order of penalty on the premise that the disciplinary authority failed to apply its mind to the evidence produced and arguments made by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority did not consider the objection of the petitioner against the enquiry report. While passing the penalty order, the enquiry officer observed that the statement of the complainant was far from the truth and not corroborated by evidence of Manohar Lal. The complainant in his statement admitted that Manohar Lal was present at the time of incident, therefore, he was an important witness. Manohar Lal in his statement had admitted that no incident took place between Sundar Singh and Om Prakash on 10.3.2006. The complaint was submitted with delay of two days and it cannot be believed that the victim remained silent for two days. It is contended that penalty is improper. When penalty of warning was imposed there was no need for imposition of additional penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. Neither copy of complaint nor enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner in absence of which it was difficult for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the complainant. The labour Court did not fix the matter for evidence and directly heard the arguments in the matter and perversely held that vide Exhibit M-47 of enquiry proceedings the petitioner stated that he is agreed with the enquiry report whereas it is evident from Exhibit M-47 which is Annexure 11 of the writ petition that the petitioner had not agreed and disputed the correctness of the enquiry report.
(2.) Perusal of the award of the Labour Court indicates that although it is observed in Para 8 of the award that the petitioner was aggrieved with the enquiry report and Exhibit M-1 on record and he disputed the correctness of the enquiry report but this minor contradiction by itself may not be significant as the other evidence in matter was examined vis- -vis question of penalty awarded. The charge against the petitioner in charge-sheet (Annexure-M-2) dated 25.4.2006 was that when he was on duty on Aligarh-Ajmer Route on 10.3.2006, he had given beating to conductor at Ajmer in presence of other employees of the corporation and also threatened him for dire consequences. Complaint of Om Prakash is Exhibit M-4. Exhibit M-36 is statement of Om Prakash Jaipuriya and Exhibit M-38 is the application filed by the petitioner. Statement of Manohar Lal Sharma was recorded vide Exhibit M-43 whereas Exhibit M-44 is the statement of the petitioner. Exhibit M-45 is enquiry report and Exhibit M-46 is the notice for personal hearing. Exhibit M-47 is the statement of the petitioner given in personal hearing and order of penalty is Exhibit M-48. The allegation against the petitioner made by Om Prakash Jaipuriya, conductor who was subjected to beatings was found proved.
(3.) As regards opportunity of cross-examination being not provided, the Labour Court has observed that statement of Om Prakash Jaipuriya was recorded on 3.10.2008 on which date the petitioner had the notice even then he did not appear. He appeared before the enquiry officer on 15.10.2008 and requested for cross-examine the complainant. The matter was fixed for cross-examination on 19.1.2009. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and requested that he did not want to cross examine the complainant. In view of above, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Besides, the petitioner was granted opportunity to produce his evidence. He produced only one witness namely Manohar Lal Sharma in his defence. Moreover, the penalty which has been awarded to the petitioner is quite reasonable looking to the charges against the petitioner. He has been simply awarded stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. In view of above, no case of interference in the award passed by the Labour Court is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.;