Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') against the award of the Labour Court dated 24.10.2000.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent -workman was issued two charge -sheets, i.e., Charge -sheet No. 1312 dated 21.7.1983 and another one bearing No. 2246 dated 19.6.1987. As per the charge -sheet issued on 21.7.1983, the respondent was charged with showing a less average with regard to consumption of diesel in the bus in comparison to other drivers pertaining to the same bus, thereby causing loss to the RSRTC. As per the second charge -sheet dated 19.6.1987, the respondent was charged with misconduct of withholding of log -book and acting in connivance with the conductor by not issuing tickets to 12 adult passengers and one child. The respondent -workman filed its replies to the charge -sheets served upon him and since the replies were found not satisfactory, the petitioner -RSRTC decided to hold a regular inquiry into the charge of misconduct leveled against the respondent -workman. The charges leveled against the respondent -workman were proved by the Inquiry Officer and after examining the matter, the charges of misconduct were proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.12.1983 proceeded to impose penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect on account of the charge -sheet dated 21.7.1983. As for second charge -sheet, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide its order dated 31.10.1987. Aggrieved against the said orders, the respondent -workman filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected on 18.2.1988, being time barred. Thereafter, the respondent -workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to both the orders of punishments passed by the Disciplinary Authority. On failure of the conciliation proceeding, the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Bhilwara. The Tribunal, while passing the award dated 24.10.2000 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct leveled against respondent -workman vide charge -sheet dated 21.7.1983 were not proved and, therefore, the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was quashed. However, the charge of misconduct leveled against the respondent -workman were held to be proved, but punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was reduced to withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the impugned award dated 24.10.2000, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -RSRTC. It has been argued by the learned counsel Mr. Vivek Shrimali, appearing on behalf of the petitioner -RSRTC that the award passed by the learned Tribunal at Bhilwara is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. It is also contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to either entertain the reference or to reduce the penalties imposed upon the respondent -workman. It has been submitted that while reducing the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested with it. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can only be invoked by the Tribunal when a penalty of discharge or dismissal has been imposed upon an employee by the employer. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under: - - "11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. - -Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
(3.) IT has been further argued that the respondent -workman was given adequate opportunity to defend himself and this fact has been noted in the award of the Labour Court itself. The learned Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that there was misconduct on the part of respondent -workman, but without assigning any reason whatsoever, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been reduced.;