Guajrat State Road Transport Corporation vs B.K. Rawal

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned advocate Ms. AS Mehta on behalf of petitioner.

In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the award passed by Industrial Tribunal in reference IT No. 450/2000 dated 6/11/2006.

The Industrial Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the competent authority on 5/2/1999 and order passed by Reviewing authority on

7/4/2000, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal has also directed to pay difference and consequential benefits to

workman.

Learned advocate Ms. Mehta submitted that respondent Conductor has committed serious misconduct by not issuing tickets to the nine

passengers though the amount of Rs. 162/- was collected from the passengers for nine tickets. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was held and after

completion of departmental inquiry, punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed by concerned authority.

Thereafter, case was reviewed by Reviewing authority and punishment which was imposed by competent authority was enhanced by Reviewing

authority by imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect instead of two increments. Therefore, Tribunal has

committed gross error which require interference by this Court. Therefore, present petition is filed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Mehta and also perused the award passed by Industrial Tribunal. The

Tribunal has considered one important facts that allegations made against the Conductor by Corporation that from nine passengers, fare was

collected and not issued tickets by respondent workman.

According to the report submitted by Checking staff, in all, amount comes to Rs. 162/- , which was recovered by respondent workman as per

allegations made in checking report. The spot statement given by workman that in his bus, in all, ninety four passengers were traveling, out of ninety

four passengers, some are on roof of bus and he had issued tickets to eighty five passengers because of over loaded bus and after the calculating

the numbers with way bill, bus was checked at checking place and nine passengers were remained without tickets. It is also made clear that he was

a new person send on this rout and as per enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry officer, charge leveled against Conductor to recover the fare

from nine passengers is not proved against Conductor.

On the contrary, it is proved that another person who was having similar surname viz. Sivabhai Raval was traveling in bus. He was having

Uniform of Conductor and sitting in sit of Conductor. This fact was disclosed by respondent workman to the checking staff and during obtaining

spot statement from passengers by checking staff, this unknown person has been already left the place.

Therefore, the fare was not recovered by respondent workman but recovered by another person. This fact has not been properly considered by

checking staff and report was submitted against Conductor.

Thereafter, Tribunal has considered the question and answer between reporter and witnesses and competent authority as well as cross

examination by representative Conductor. Ultimately, Tribunal has come to conclusion that passenger, who was deposed before Competent

authority, who was cross examined by him, which would without jurisdiction of competent authority. Therefore, competent authority has acted as

prosecutor and Judge, such act itself is violated the principle of natural justice.

Considering the entire facts and circumstance, Tribunal has come to conclusion that respondent workman was not at all liable for the

punishment because somebody else had recovered amount from the passengers. This fact was disclosed by Conductor on the spot and it is not

disputed that ninety four passengers were traveling in the bus by checking staff and some of are on the roof of bus.

Therefore, considering the entire reasoning given by Tribunal. According to my opinion, Tribunal has rightly set aside the punishment, for that

cogent reason is given in support of his conclusion. For that, Tribunal has not committed any error which would require any interference by this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Mehta cannot be accepted and same is

rejected.

Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. Hence, present petition is disposed of.