Bhaskarbhai Ziparbhai Kanvar vs Divisional Director

N.V. Anjaria, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. J.K. Parmar for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Archana Patel for learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Raval for the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner-workman has sought to challenge judgment and award dated 3rd January, 2009 of Labour Court, Valsad passed in Reference (LCV) 253 of 2006 whereby the Labour Court rejected the Reference of the workman.

The petitioner-workman was employed as Conductor with the respondent-Corporation. He was subjected to departmental inquiry. The misconduct was of collection of fare without issuing tickets in a bus plying from Vapi to Pipalset on 12.06.2003. Upon a checking undertaken by the checking Squad of the Corporation, it was noticed that the workman had not issued tickets to a group of two passengers though he had collected amount of Rs. 12 towards fare. In the bus, there were 33 passengers in total. The inquiry officer held the charge of misappropriation as proved and punishment of dismissal was imposed by the competent authority.

The Labour Court while deciding the Reference of the workman, after considering the report of the inquiry officer recorded that in the inquiry, the reporter was examined to prove the charges. The statements of the passengers were also obtained. It was further recorded by the Labour Court that no specific defence came out from the workman in the reply to the charge-sheet. Labour Court recorded that other evidence of unclosed way-bill and unpunched tickets were before the inquiry officer. The labour court categorically concluded that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer was proper and based on evidence. Before the Labour court, the workman filed purshish, Exh. 9 and gave up contention regarding procedural legality and fairness of the inquiry. Looking to the nature of misconduct which was misappropriation and the same having been proved by the legally reliable evidence in the inquiry, the punishment of dismissal was rightly held to be proper and proportionate punishment by the labour court.

In Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, the supreme court has propounded that awarding of punishment of dismissal could be justified in the cases of gross misconduct of misappropriation. It was observed that in such cases, generosity or misplaced sympathy by the court has no place. It is considered trite that since conductor holds the position of trust in public corporation, the misconduct of the nature of misappropriation could not be viewed leniently for the purpose of imposing punishment; more particularly when it was proved in an inquiry properly held.

Another aspect which was germane for selection of penalty of dismissal being the past record of the workman was also taken into account by the Labour Court while judging the proportionality of the penalty. The workman had to his discredit as many as nine past misconducts, out of which four were of similar kinds wherein he had collected the fare, but had not issued the tickets to the passengers in the bus. Labour Court also recorded a finding that in the facts and circumstances, the punishment of dismissal was commensurate to the misconduct and the gravity of it. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, no exception could be taken to the reasoning of the Labour Court in the impugned judgment and award. The powers u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been properly exercised. There is no substance in the challenge. The petition is dismissed.