GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JAMNADAS BECHARBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a time for everything. There is a time for showing sympathy. There is also a time for being strict. Problems arise when one enters by the wrong time-door and shows sympathy where strictness is called for and vice versa. And the present is the case which sharpens the profile of this problem. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation had dismissed a conductor who was found guilty of collecting fare from passengers without issuing tickets. The Labour Court which was exercising jurisdiction for reducing punishment under sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 had undoubtedly wide discretion in the matter of reduction of punishment as held by us in R. M. Parmar v. Gujarat Electricity Board Baroda 23 G.L.R. 352. We re-affirm the nine propositions enunciated therein viz.:

(2.) We are however constrained to elaborate the rider added by us in Proposition No. 9 wherein it has been observed by us that when an employee holding a sensitive post of trust has been dismissed from service the matter may have to be viewed in a different light. By way of must ration we have referred to pilferage by a cashier of a store-keeper from the stores in his charge. Perhaps we should have anticipated a situation like the present and referred to misappropriation by a bus conductor who has collected fare from passengers but has failed to issue tickets to them. If a bus conductor has been dismissed in such circumstances his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in; the same mal-practice in future. Everyday he has to collect fare and issue tickets. Reinstatement in the same post would therefore involve grave risk because of the repetitive opportunity that he would get to indulge in the mal-practice and the daily temptation that he would face. Perhaps he would be tempted to repair the past losses. Under the circumstances when in a fit case the Labour Court reaches the conclusion that misappropriation by a bus conductor has been established (in view of the evidence showing that he had collected the fare from the passengers but had not issued tickets though he had sufficient opportunity to do so in circumstances going to show that there was a dishonest intention) the Labour Court would have to think more than twice before directing reinstatement in the same post as conductor wherein he would be afforded the same opportunity or faced with the same temptation and the Corporation would be exposed to the same risk every day. Be it realised that misappropriation by a bus conductor must be viewed with a degree of seriousness especially having regard to the fact that it would make successful working of a public Corporation impossible. In case misappropriation by a conductor is detected and he is found guilty punishment must be deterrent to him as also to others for misappropriation in such circumstances would be in relation to public moneys and the burden would fall on the shoulders of the common man. And be it realised that 80 per cent of the total tax burden consists of indirect taxes which males it impossible for the common man to stand erect and virtually males him crouch on the ground. There is another tormenting reason for viewing the matter with anxious eyes. The Public Sector can never (NEvER) succeed if everyones property (which it in fact is) is treated as no ones property. The New Culture for the New Man of New India must therefore be National Interest above all other interests including self-interest sectional interest or class-interest. And therefore the bus conductor poor as he is may have to suffer. We suffer more than him in having to say so particularly because big sharks never get caught. If they get caught they more often than not escape with impunity. But then merely because we cannot prevent the sharks escaping we cannot permit the fly to trifle with Public Property which is the poor mens collective property (if we envision for them a sun-lit day even on some distant morrow in the hidden future). Under the circumstances the Labour Court was not justified in reinstating a conductor who bad collected fare pocketed the same and robbed the National Exchequer in the saMe post where he could re-indulge in the same weakness at public cost. The Labour Court can depending upon facts and circumstances of the case and of the offender direct that he should be absorbed in the workshop section or some other similar post which does not involve daily handling of money. That must be left to the Labour Court. And the Labour Court would have to decide the issue having regard to facts and circumstances of each case and the demands of the situation in the context of each matter.

(3.) In the present case this aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court. We therefore allow the petition quash and set aside the order as per Annexure A and send the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Both the sides will be at liberty to produce such material as they desire in regard to the question of substituting some other penalty. It will be open to the Labour Court to take such view as the circumstances of the case demand bearing in mind the aforesaid dimension of the case. 4 Rule absolute to this extent. No order regarding costs.