Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs P. Radharamana Adult

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, a Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dt. 24/8/2011 in I.D. No. 147/09 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, has presented this petition. Respondent while in the service of the petitioner-Corporation, as a conductor, was issued with articles of charge dt. 9/4/2001 alleging possession of unauthorized excess amount of Rs. 49/-, which was from out of the revenue of the Corporation, collected from passengers travelling in the bus. Respondent denied the allegation and stated that it was habitual for passengers during night trips to leave the change with the conductor. That explanation when not accepted, led to an inquiry followed by a report, holding the charges proved, resulting in the disciplinary authority accepting the findings and imposing the punishment of reducing the basic pay by one stage permanently, by order dt. 31/3/2012.

Respondent-workman is said to have initiated conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, some 7 years after the order whence the State Government by order dt. 21/5/2009 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, registered as I.D. No. 147/09. In that proceeding, respondent arraigned as the I party represented by the Trade Union, filed a claim statement which was opposed by filing counter-statement of the petitioner arraigned as the II party, inter alia contending that the dispute was stale, due to delay and laches. The Industrial Tribunal framed issues where afterwards documents furnished by the petitioner were marked as Ex. M1 to M19. The issue over validity of the domestic inquiry was held in the affirmative i.e., that it was fair and valid. The Industrial Tribunal which had the benefit of the entire records of the disciplinary proceedings commencing from the issue of the offence memo until the order of the Appellate Authority, having noticed that the respondent-workman, in unequivocal terms, admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer that he was in possession of excess cash of Rs. 49/-, nevertheless, on technicality that the order of punishment was in a cyclostyled form and that the respondent was discharging duties on a long route from Anekal to Dharmastala, while the checking report did not mention the total number of passengers in the bus and no discrepancies between the tickets torn from the tray and the passengers travelling in the bus, inferred that the workman could not have collected fares and not issued tickets to conclude that the order imposing punishment was perverse. Since the punishment of withholding one increment resulted in permanent monetary loss, it was held, is not a legal order. As regards the delay, it was held that if the punishment order is found to be malicious, vindictive and disproportionate to the proved misconduct, it is a settled position that delay in raising the dispute would not come in the way of interference and by the award impugned, set aside the order imposing punishment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that any adjudication of an industrial dispute will have to be undertaken on the basis of the entire material on record and not merely on the order imposing minor punishment, in a cyclostyled format. Learned counsel hastens to add that in the light of the unequivocal admission made by the respondent-workman over the excess cash of Rs. 49/- in his possession at the time of checking the bus, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in holding that the misconduct was not proved. According to the learned counsel, the unconditional acceptance of the charge, did not require any further inquiry into the charge and the imposition of the minor punishment cannot be said to be either devoid of sound reasoning or that it was malicious, vindictive and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The fact that the Reference made by the State Government was 7 years after the order imposing punishment, is borne out from the records and as an explanation for the delay is not forthcoming, learned counsel submits that there being no satisfactory explanation, the Labour Court was not justified in answering the issue over delay on a mere hypotheses.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman seeks to sustain the award impugned as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned counsel submits that it is a usual practice of passengers during the night trips not to furnish the correct fares, but generally leave the change with the conductor and on 8 such occasions in the past, the conductor did remit the said excess money as a revenue of the Corporation.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the award impugned, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court failed to understand adjudication of disputes referred to it. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, once a government, either the State or Central, refers an industrial dispute, then it is for the Tribunal or the Labour Court to assess the material on record which means, material placed before the said court by either of the parties which have a bearing on the decision making. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal having noticed that the respondent-workman in the domestic enquiry admitted his guilt of possessing excess cash of Rs. 49/-, nothing further remained for the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the order. In my opinion, the interference with the order of minor punishment imposed by the petitioner-management on having found the respondent-workman guilty of charges, more appropriately in the light of admission of the charges, the Industrial Tribunal recorded perverse findings and conclusions.

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that generally passengers in the night would not collect the change from the conductors, is far from acceptance, since such is not the case pleaded before the Inquiry Officer. Even otherwise, there is not a titer of evidence to substantiate the fact that some passengers did not collect the change due to them, after having tendered the fare. It is no doubt true that if the order imposing punishment is void ab initio, then the order could be interfered with, even if there is a delay. Such is not the position in the present case. The respondent-workman did not place relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the delay occasioned was on acceptable and satisfactory explanation. The finding of the Tribunal that the punishment was malicious, cannot but be characterized as perverse, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is quashed and the Reference of the State Government rejected.