Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs G. Kenchappa

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the award dated 4.8.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, in ID No. 65/2009 vide Annexure-E. By the impugned award at Annexure ''E'', the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, has modified the punishment by imposing penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are;

The respondent was working as a Conductor. On 5.12.1993, the respondent was discharging his duty in the bus bearing No. 5493. The bus was checked at Viduraswatha. It was found that the respondent had not issued tickets to four passengers who were traveling from RPGB Spinning Mill to Viduraswatha. Articles of charge was issued to the respondent. The respondent denied the charge. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty reducing one incremental stage with cumulative effect. An industrial dispute has been raised in ID No. 65/2009. The Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 4.8.2011 has modified the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and has imposed penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award cannot sustained in law. He also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal having held that the charge is proved was not justified in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, .

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal having regard to the nature of charge has modified the punishment and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is a major penalty and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in modifying the punishment. He placed reliance on the decision reported in Hubert Lobo Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and Others, . He therefore, submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is; Whether the impugned award calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the respondent was working as a conductor. He was charged with the allegation that he had not issued tickets to four passengers who were traveling from RPGB Spinning Mill to Viduraswatha. The disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The Industrial Tribunal has modified the punishment having held that the misconduct is proved. The Tribunal has imposed penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year which is not correct. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, has observed as follows:

The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has not power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11A in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victiminsation, etc. in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, the absence of any of the allegations of victimization or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry.

It is clear, the Industrial Tribunal had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as Section 11A the ID Act is not applicable. The Industrial Tribunal having held that the misconduct is proved was not justified in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 65/2009 vide Annexure ''E'' modifying the punishment is hereby quashed. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored.