Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Sukhminder Singh and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Bhatinda directing the petitioner to pay back wages to respondent No. 1 till the date of the award from the date of termination of the services of respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation on October 19, 1980. The bus in which respondent No. 1 was working as a Conductor, was checked by the Inspector on October 25, 1980. During the checking, it was found that the Conductor collected fares from twelve passengers without issuing tickets. Thereafter, charge sheet was served on him on November 17, 1980, and after hearing respondent No. 1 his services were terminated by an order dated March 10, 1981. Against the order of termination, respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it found that respondent No. 1 was indulging in misconduct and he charged the bus fare from twelve passengers without issuing tickets. On the basis of his findings, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that termination of the services of respondent No.1 was appropriate action and held that the services of respondent No. 1 were rightly terminated but the Labour Court while coming to the conclusion observed that since the present proceedings have been converted into enquiry proceedings, the notional date of the termination of the services of respondent No. 1 should be the date of the award and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled to back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of award i.e. from March 10, 1981, to April 13, 1987. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging this portion of the award granting back wages to respondent No. 1 from March 10, 1981, to April 13, 1987.

In order to award back wages from March 10, 1981, to April 13, 1987, the Labour Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Shobrati Khan and Others, . The Labour Court did not refer to the facts of the said case. On going through the said case and also the decision of the Supreme Court in P.H. Kalyani Vs. Air France Calcutta, and also the decision in D.C. Roy Vs. The Presiding Officer, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore and Others, , I am of the opinion that the decision in Sasa Musa''s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case In D.C. Roy''s case (supra) the Supreme Court observed as follows :-

"Though the Labour Court, in the instant case, found that the inquiry was defective as it infringed the principles of natural justice, it came to, the conclusion after considering the evidence adduced before it, that the dismissal was justified. The award of the Labour Court must therefore relate back to the date when the order of dismissal was passed on the termination of the Domestic inquiry."

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sasa Musa''s case (supra), the Supreme Court made the following observations :-

"Counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of this Court in Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Shobrati Khan and Others, but that case is clearly distinguishable. As pointed out by this Court in P.H. Kalyani Vs. Air France Calcutta, , Sasa Musa was a case where an application had been made u/s 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss the employees and such permission was asked for, though no inquiry whatsoever was held by the employer and no decision was taken that the employee be dismissed. The case for dismissal of the employees was made out for the first time in the proceedings u/s 33(1) and it was for that reason that it was held that the employees were entitled to back wages until the decision of the application filed u/s 33. Commenting on the decision in Sasa Musa, this Court observed in P.H. Kalyani''s case that the matter would have been different if in Sasa Musa, an inquiry had been held, the employer had come to the conclusion that the dismissal was the proper punishment and had then applied u/s 33(1) for permission to dismiss the employees. "In those circumstances the permission would have related back to the date when the employer came to the conclusion after an inquiry that dismissal was the proper punishment and had applied for removal of the ban by an application u/s 33(1)."

Thus, it is clear that the decision on the Supreme court in Sasa Musa''s case (supra) is applicable. Where no decision was taken to dismiss the employee. Therefore, the decision in Sasa Musa''s case is not applicable to the case in hand. This is not a case where there was no domestic enquiry. After issuing notice and after hearing respondent No. 1, the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated. Therefore, the doctrine of relation back applies to the case in hand.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that respondent No. 1 also cannot have any sympathy from thus court as within one week from the date of his appointment of his services as a Conductor, he indulged in misconduct and tried to defraud the Corporation. He joined the services of the Corporation only on October 19, 1980, and he was found guilty of misappropriation of funds of the Corporation on October 25, 1980, i.e. by collecting the fares from the passengers without issuing tickets. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any sympathy from this Court.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the order of the Labour Court granting back wages to respondent No. 1 from the date of termination i.e. March 11, 1980, fill the date of award is liable to be set aside.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.