Gabbar Singh vs M. P. S. R. T. C. Gwalior and Others

Tej Shankar, J.

In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed the quashing of the order (Annex. P/1) dated 27.9.97 and part of the order dated 25.4.89 (Annex. P/2) so far as it related to back wages.

The allegations are that he was employed with respondent - Corporation. Two charge-sheets were submitted against him and domestic proceedings were started. During the enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The provision of G. M. O. 661 were not followed. No opportunity for cross - examination of witnesses was given and order dated 23.8.82 whereby his services were terminated was passed vide Annexure P/3. He presented an application under M. P. Industrial Relations Act (Annex. P/4), which was contested by respondent - Corporation and return Annexure P/5 was filed. After hearing the parties at length, order Annexure P/2 was passed on 25.4.89 and the application was partly allowed. Respondent - Corporation was directed to reinstate him within a period of one month, but the back wages were refused. The petitioner challenged the order relating to refusal of back wages in appeal vide Annexure P/7 and also respondent - Corporation filed an appeal (Annex. P/8). Both the appeals were heard by respondent no. 3 and the order passed by respondent no. 4 was quashed and the order of dismissal of services of the petitioner dated 23.8.82 was maintained. Both the orders as stated above, have been challenged in this petition.

Respondents 1 and 2 filed a return contesting the claim of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the petitioner committed misconduct on 4.10.81 and 2.4.82 inasmuch as he carried passengers without issuing tickets to them. He was charge-sheeted and the departmental enquiry took place as contemplated under sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner. As a result of the enquiry, all the charges were found proved. Hence the order of dismissal was passed on 23.8.1982. The Labour Court gave a categorical finding that he committed the misconduct and that finding was confirmed by the Tribunal as well. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal.

Admittedly, the petitioner was working with the respondent - Corporation and a disciplinary proceedings took place against the petitioner with respect to two charge sheets. As a result of which, his services were terminated and he was dismissed vide Annexure P/3. As said earlier, the contention is that the disciplinary enquiry did not afford any opportunity. This question was also raised before the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and a specific finding has been given by the Courts below. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court shows that it was specifically held that the petitioner had taken 24 persons without tickets. He claimed that he had not taken money. The Court found that it amounted to misconduct. The Industrial Tribunal has also categorically held that there was a misconduct. Both the Courts below took into consideration during the arguments related to the fact as to whether opportunity was given to the petitioner or not and repelled the arguments. This Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot reassess the evidence and cannot act as appellate Court. The findings recorded by the two Courts below cannot be said to be illegal. The earliest case on which reliance has been placed by the respondents'' counsel is Devkinandan Tiwari Vs. State Industrial Court and Others, . In that case also, the facts were similar. There in the domestic enquiry, it was held against the petitioner / bus conductor that he committed major misconduct of carrying 20 passengers without tickets and it was found by the Labour Court that the enquiry was held fairly and properly and was not vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, however, reduced the punishment of termination and substituted it by withholding back wages and a fine of Rs. 100/- on the ground that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to improve himself. This order was reversed by the Industrial Tribunal and it was held that once an act of dishonesty was established, the order of dismissal was restored. The Division Bench of this Court held that to afford a chance of improvement at the cost of the employer after an act of major misconduct of a grave and serious nature was established, would be very unfair and unreasonable from the point of view and interest of the employer. The Court, therefore, declined to interfere in the order of reversal passed by the Industrial Court. This decision was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge of this Court in 1997 LLR 886 (MP State Road Transport Corporation V. Surendera Singh). In that case also, on inspection of the vehicle, it was found that 12 passengers were travelling without tickets. Services of the bus-conductor were terminated. The Labour Court set aside the termination and directed his reinstatement and that order was confirmed by the Industrial Court. The Corporation preferred a writ petition in this Court and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devkinandan Tiwari and another decision of the Apex Court reported in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, . It was held that the Court can correct the wrong interpretation of a judgment by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court, but cannot proceed to review the evidence or sit as an appellate Court. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the termination order was restored. In another decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998 LLR 154 (Ram Sahai Yadav V. M. P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors.), the aforesaid decision of the Devkinandan Tiwari was taken note of. There also the Labour Court and the Industrial Court had found on facts that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct. There 41 passengers were found to be travelling without tickets and after the due enquiry, the services were terminated. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages. Appeals were filed. The Industrial Court uphold the termination, which was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was rejected holding that there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, and the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below can not be disturbed by this Court under the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case in hand, there is clear finding of fact, as mentioned above, by both the Courts below. Of course, the Labour Court directed reinstatement and that order has been reversed by the Industrial Court as in the aforesaid case of Ram Sahai Yadav. In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the totality of facts established before the courts below and the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, I find no merit in the petition. It is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs.