North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and Others vs J. Siddayya

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court, assailing the award dated 30.04.2008 passed in reference No. 8/2003.

The petitioner - Corporation had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on the allegation that on 29.03.1999, while he was conducting the bus on the route Bellary to Basarkod, he had not issued tickets to a group of 15 passengers of Rs. 1.50 denomination and Rs. 4.00 to 20 passengers. The defence put forth by the respondent was that he was in the process of issuing tickets and there was difficulty in doing so as there were about 150 passengers traveling in the bus.

The Labour Court while considering the validity of the domestic enquiry had held the same to be fair and proper. Thereafter, while examining the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer had taken note of the situation that there were 150 passengers in the bus and the respondent was in the process of issuing tickets and from the evidence had taken into consideration that on the said day due to reduction of the number of the buses, such rush had occasioned. Keeping these aspects in view, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the charge cannot be held as proved. However, a perusal of the finding rendered by the Labour Court would indicate that a confusion has arisen in the mind of the Court, but in any event, even if the charge is held to have been proved, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that in the present circumstance the punishment of dismissal would be too harsh, more particularly taking into consideration the reason for which the ticket was not yet issued. In that view, the Labour Court was of the opinion that with holding of three increments with cumulative effect would be an appropriate punishment in the present circumstance. Accordingly, the Labour Court has modified the order of dismissal and has on granting reinstatement directed that the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect be imposed as a punishment. The petitioner - Corporation contends that the Labour Court was not justified.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the award. I am of the opinion that when the Labour Court has taken note of all aspects and has exercised the discretion to direct reinstatement with an alternate punishment of withholding of three annual increments, the punishment would be adequate, more particularly when such reinstatement is made without back wages and only granting continuity of service. Further, notwithstanding the filing of the petition, by way of interim measure the respondent has already been reinstated into service. Though, the same is subject to result of this petition has in any event worked for more than five years. In such circumstance, where the back wages has been denied and the major punishment of with holding of three increments with cumulative effect has been imposed in substitution of the punishment of dismissal, an opportunity would be available to the respondent to reform himself and therefore, keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the award does not call for interference.

It is however made clear that if the respondent indulges in similar misconduct henceforth, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate appropriate action to impose the punishment of dismissal and in such circumstance, no indulgence would be shown to the petitioner for altering the punishment if any. The continuity of service as already grated by the Labour Court would only be for the purpose of taking into consideration the length of service for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits and the period from the date on which he was dismissed till the date of reinstatement shall not be considered for payment of any monetary benefits.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.