Pitambar Das Tiwari vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

The appellant was working as a conductor of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ''the Corporation''). He was served with a charge-sheet on 29-1-1996 on the ground that he was on duty of a bus belonging to the Corporation plying between Narsinghpur to Pipariya, the same was checked on 23-12-1995 by the Flying Squad of the Corporation and out of total 34 passengers, 17 passengers were found travelling without tickets from whom though he had already received the fare amount but with dishonest intention did not issue tickets to them. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations, As the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted against him. In the enquiry he was found guilty of charges and as such the appellant was dismissed from service. Assailing the order of dismissal the appellant approached to the Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal, by filing an application u/s 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act (for short ''the Act'') challenging the domestic enquiry and order of dismissal. The Labour Court decided the preliminary issue holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and gave the corporation opportunity to lead evidence on the misconduct. The Labour Court after recording the evidence lead by the parties about the alleged misconduct and after due appreciation of it held the appellant guilty of the misconduct and maintained the order of dismissal vide order dated 4-3-2003.

By filing an appeal u/s 65 of the Act the appellant challenged the order of Labour Court before the Industrial Court, Bhopal Bench. The Industrial Court in Appeal No. 88/MPIR/2003 vide its order dated 8-1-2004 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by the Labour Court. The said orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court were challenged in W.P. (S) No. 1177/2004 on the ground that the punishment of dismissal being shockingly disproportionate, it requires interference of the Court. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct did not find the penalty to be disproportionate and vide its order dated 12-3-2004 dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed this appeal.

In this appeal, it is contended that the findings record by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, holding the appellant to be guilty of dishonesty are illegal. We feel that such contention is not available to the appellant firstly because it was not raised before the learned Single Judge secondly, the Labour Court after appreciation of evidence by a well reasoned order has recorded the finding that the appellant in spite of recovering fare from 17 passengers allowed them to travel for a distance of four kilometers, this finding of the Labour Court is based on the documents prepared by the checking staff of the Corporation. In appeal after re-appreciation of evidence the said finding has been affirmed by the Industrial Court and, therefore the same being concurrent finding of fact in the absence of any perversity, the same can not be assailed.

So far as the other contention of the appellant that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate the same is also not tenable. The Supreme Court in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., has held that once the act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service.

In U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 370 , the Supreme Court has observed that the removal of the conductor from services is not a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct, if he is found attempting to cause loss of Rs. 65/- to the Corporation.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited and another, etc. Vs. Kala Singh, etc., , has held that "in view of the proof of misconduct, the necessary consequence would be that the management had lost confidence that the appellant would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to grant relief of reinstatement with minor penalty".

A Division Bench of this Court in Devkinandan v. Industrial Court 1990 MPLJ 653, has held in Para 8 as under :--

"8. While parting with the petition it may not be out of place to mention here that the very object of employing a conductor and giving charge of the bus on a particular route is to safeguard and promote the prospects and interest of the employer a public undertaking in its venture of transport business. The conductor is expected to be vigilant enough and see that no passengers travel without tickets. If the conductor is unable to discharge this sacred trust reposed in him by the employer and on the contrary deliberately permits as many as 20 passengers to travel without tickets in a single trip, then he does not deserve to be retained as conductor."

In the case of The Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Another Vs. S. Mohammed Gaffar, , the Supreme Court has held that the Court can not interfere in the quantum of punishment, unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

In the present case, the appellant was held to be guilty of dishonesty. He allowed 17 passengers to travel for a distance of four kilometers. He did not issue tickets to them in spite of recovering fare from them. The basic and foremost duty of the conductor, needless to say, is to collect fare from the travelling passengers, no sooner they have boarded the bus. If the passengers are allowed to travel even for a few kilometers without issuance of tickets after they have boarded the bus, alone is sufficient and is indicative of the fact that such conduct is dishonest and that malafide intention is in his mind. For such misconduct the punishment of removal can not be said to be shockingly disproportionate.

In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.