Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs Muddalaiah <BR> Muddalaiah Vs The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Tumkur Division

H. Billappa, J.—These two writ petitions are directed against the award dated 29.6.2011, passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Ref. No. 10/2009 vide Annexure-H. By the impugned award at Annexure-H, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and has directed the petitioner in W.P. No. 3732/12 to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits excluding the leave surrender encashment benefit and without back wages.

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the Corporation has filed W.P. No. 3732/2012 and the workman has filed W.P. No. 11872/13.

The parties will be referred to with reference to their rank in W.P. No. 3732/2012.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The respondent-workman was working as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. On 4.7.2003, the respondent was on duty on Chengavi to Gubbi route. He failed to issue tickets to five passengers though he had collected fare from them. For five passengers neither tickets were issued nor fare was collected. Articles of charges were issued to the respondent on 8.7.2003. The respondent submitted his reply denying the charges. Consequently, an enquiry was held and the respondent was found guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service. A dispute was raised in Reference No. 10/09. The Labour Court by its award dated 29.6.2011 has set aside the order of dismissal and has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits except leave surrender encashment benefit and without back wages.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner-Corporation as well as the respondent-workman have filed these two writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Labour Court has found the respondent guilty of the charges and inspite of that, has directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits which is totally incorrect and contrary to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Further inviting my attention to paras 27 and 28 of the award, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding that tickets were not issued to five passengers though fare was collected and for five passengers neither tickets were issued nor fare was collected. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, to contend that the Labour Court was not justified in directing reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits. He therefore submitted that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent i.e., petitioner in W.P. No. 11872/13 submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. She also submitted that there is a clear admission in the evidence of MW-2 that all the passengers were issued with the tickets and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in recording a finding that the respondent was guilty of the charges. She therefore submitted that the impugned award insofar as it relates to denial of back wages is concerned, it cannot be sustained in law.

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 in the petitioner Corporation. On 4.7.2003, the respondent was discharging his duty on Chengavi to Gubbi route. The checking staff has checked the bus at Kembalapalya at about 13.35 hours. It was found that the respondent had not issued tickets to five passengers though he had collected fare from them and for five passengers neither tickets were issued nor fare was collected. The respondent was found guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the respondent from service.

The Labour Court considering the material on record has held that the respondent had not issued tickets to five passengers though he had collected fare from them and for five passengers neither tickets were issued nor fare was collected. However, the Labour Court taking into consideration that the punishment is disproportionate has set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits excluding leave surrender encashment benefit and without back wages.

I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that MW2 has admitted that all the passengers were issued with the tickets. An inference cannot be drawn from a stray sentence. The evidence read as a whole clearly indicates that the respondent had not issued tickets to five passengers though he had collected fare from them and for five passengers neither tickets were issued nor fare was collected. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court does not call for interference.

However, the Labour Court was not justified in directing reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits excluding leave surrender encashment benefit and without back wages. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, has observed as follows at para. 6.

It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers though they should have or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowingly fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly, they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.

Similarly, in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, reinstatement itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. In the present case, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent is guilty of the charges. Inspite of that, the labour court has directed reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits excluding leave surrender encashment benefit and without back wages which is totally incorrect and contrary to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. On 19.3.2012, this court has directed reinstatement subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequently, the respondent has been reinstated and he has attained superannuation on 30.4.2003. Therefore, the reinstatement does not call for interference. However, the direction regarding continuity of service and consequential benefits needs to be modified.

Accordingly, W.P. No. 3732/2012 is allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in Ref. No. 10/2009 is modified as follows;

The respondent is entitled for continuity of service only for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits and not for benefits like increments, promotions etc., The respondent shall not be entitled to any consequential benefits or back wages.

W.P. No. 11872/2013 is hereby dismissed.