GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. N M DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are similar in certain respects as we shall instantly point out. The respondent in these three petitions are the conductors of the S.T. Corporation which is the common petitioner before us. Against all the three respondents in these three petitions separate departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of misappropriation of the amounts of fare collected by them from the passengers. In the petition No. 3059 of 1984 the charge was of misappropriating Rs. 160.20; in the second matter the amount of misappropriation is not known but the charge against him was to the effect that he had collected amounts of fare from the passengers and had not issued necessary tickets to them with a dishonest intention of misappropriating the amount; and in the third matter also the amount is not known but he was also alleged to have pocketed the money without issuing tickets. The respondents in these petitions were dismissed after the enquiry and these orders of dismissal were challenged by these conductors by seeking References before the concerned Labour Court. In the first matter it was Labour Court at Navsari; in the seond matter it was Labour Court at Ahmedabad; and in the third matter again it was the one at Navsari.

(2.) When the matters were called out on the respective dates before the respective Judge curiously enough the respective conductor passed a purshis forgoing all his contentions about the legality of the order of penalty and various other contentions put forward. The purshis stated that he was with-drawing all these contentions and was admitting the guilt and was praying for mercy. The concerned Judge on three occasions then purported to hear the Advocates and then passed the order of reinstatement without back wages on the ground that the penalty of dismissal was cruel in the case of people with families or it was too out of proportion. Obviously in all the three cases the guilt was held as established.

(3.) We find that the sudden change of the front by an employee cannot be without any promise either expressly or impliedly held out to him and in all probability by the Labour Court Judge himself who will get an opportunity to have the speedy disposal of the cases before him. Otherwise a conductor would not ordinarily let go a weapon of attack so readily so smoothly so sportingly. As this type of tendency to have speedy and easy disposal has become rampant as has been seen by us from a number of cases involving the S. T. Corporation on one hand and the conductors on the other we are inclined to feel so. Misappropriation if held established would obviously be a major misconduct and unless a very strong case is made out to interfere with the punishment the Labour Court would not be justified ordinarily in interfering with the dis-cretion of the competent authority to deal with the delinquent concerned. To say that these are hard days for the people to find out jobs or to say that the conductor is a man with a wife and children are the factors common to all cases barring a few instances where the conductor is unmarried or having no children. This can hardly be a ground for any consideration. After all services with such public Corporations are not pasture-grounds always open for the people or they are not brought about for the purpose of furnishing employment to the unemployed in the society. We would therefore say that all cases are required to be examined on their own merits and interest not of the certain persons likely to be adversely affected are to be seen but also interests of such public administrations require to be closely examined and given a due thought.