Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Ladu Lal and Others

Jaishree Thakur, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ''RSRTC'') against the award of the Labour Court dated 24.10.2000.

Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-workman was issued two charge-sheets, i.e., Charge-sheet No. 1312 dated 21.7.1983 and another one bearing No. 2246 dated 19.6.1987. As per the charge-sheet issued on 21.7.1983, the respondent was charged with showing a less average with regard to consumption of diesel in the bus in comparison to other drivers pertaining to the same bus, thereby causing loss to the RSRTC. As per the second charge-sheet dated 19.6.1987, the respondent was charged with misconduct of withholding of log-book and acting in connivance with the conductor by not issuing tickets to 12 adult passengers and one child. The respondent-workman filed its replies to the charge-sheets served upon him and since the replies were found not satisfactory, the petitioner-RSRTC decided to hold a regular inquiry into the charge of misconduct leveled against the respondent-workman. The charges leveled against the respondent-workman were proved by the Inquiry Officer and after examining the matter, the charges of misconduct were proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.12.1983 proceeded to impose penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect on account of the charge-sheet dated 21.7.1983. As for second charge-sheet, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide its order dated 31.10.1987. Aggrieved against the said orders, the respondent-workman filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected on 18.2.1988, being time barred. Thereafter, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to both the orders of punishments passed by the Disciplinary Authority. On failure of the conciliation proceeding, the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Bhilwara. The Tribunal, while passing the award dated 24.10.2000 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct leveled against respondent-workman vide charge-sheet dated 21.7.1983 were not proved and, therefore, the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was quashed. However, the charge of misconduct leveled against the respondent-workman were held to be proved, but punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was reduced to withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the impugned award dated 24.10.2000, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-RSRTC.

It has been argued by the learned counsel Mr. Vivek Shrimali, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-RSRTC that the award passed by the learned Tribunal at Bhilwara is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. It is also contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to either entertain the reference or to reduce the penalties imposed upon the respondent-workman. It has been submitted that while reducing the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested with it. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can only be invoked by the Tribunal when a penalty of discharge or dismissal has been imposed upon an employee by the employer. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:--

"11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."

It has been further argued that the respondent-workman was given adequate opportunity to defend himself and this fact has been noted in the award of the Labour Court itself. The learned Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that there was misconduct on the part of respondent-workman, but without assigning any reason whatsoever, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been reduced.

Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in (1) The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohan Lal etc., and (2) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Others, and (3) Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Vs. Kamruddin, , the counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the punishment imposed since the same was not excessive or not out of proportion with the misconduct alleged against the respondent-workman.

Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that the award is well reasoned and has taken into account the fact that the punishment awarded was not proportionate to the misconduct. It is argued that after dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority against the punishment awarded, the State Government made reference to the Labour Court for settling the dispute and as such the learned Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

The respondent was served with a charge-sheet on two counts, one was on account of showing a lower average by consumption of diesel against the same bus used by other drivers on different dates. The second imputation in the charge-sheet was that the respondent-workman, in connivance with the conductor, had not issued 12 tickets to adults and half ticket to a minor, thereby resulting in loss to the petitioner-Corporation. Moreover, the respondent-workman also refused to hand-over the log-book when the same was asked for and such refusal amounts to misconduct.

A full-fledged domestic inquiry was held and the charges were proved against the respondent-workman. On a reference, on account of charge sheet No. 1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the method of calculating the average of diesel was not proper and the average was based on those days when the defects were registered in the defect book. After appreciating the evidence the Labour Court set aside the punishment awarded of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

However on Charge sheet No. 2 the Tribunal after holding that the inquiry was proper and that there was misconduct on the part of the respondent, reduced the punishment awarded to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

It is a well settled principal of law that under section 11A of the Act of 1947, the power by the labour court has to be exercised judicially and has to be exercised only if the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the charge found proved against him. In Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) it was held that:--

"We notice from the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent workman had indulged in misconduct which has not only led to monetary loss to the Corporation but the Corporation has also lost confidence in the said workman. Therefore, to continue such an employee in employment of the Corporation by virtue of a judicial order, in our opinion, is an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity. The finding that the workman has committed the misconduct in question of not issuing tickets to passengers is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence recorded therein. This finding was affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the High Court has not set aside the finding. Therefore, the question of moulding the relief on the facts of this case did not arise at all. The offer of the respondent to forgo the back wages in lieu of his being reinstated is not an order to be taken into consideration by the Court unless and until the finding of the Tribunal on misconduct was set aside and having perused the records including the order of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that this is not one of those cases in which there was room for setting aside such a finding."

Similarly in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) it was observed that the Labour Court has discretion to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of the workman into an order of reinstatement of the workman. It was further held in the above case as under:--

"The Labour Court, while upholding the third charge against the respondent nevertheless interfered with the order of the appellant removing the respondent from the service. The charge against the respondent was that he, in drunken state, along with a conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash room of the appellant and demanded money from the Assistant Cashier. When the Assistant Cashier refused, the respondent abused him and threatened to assault him. It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service when the charge against him stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified. It could not be said that the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the charge found proved against him. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice."

In the case in hand the labor court appreciated evidence and came to the conclusion that punishment of stoppage of one increment is not sustainable since the method of calculation of average consumption of diesel was based on those days when defects of the vehicle had been registered in the defect book. I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity with this conclusion arrived at by the labour Court.

As regards the second charge sheet, after holding that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner, and misconduct had been established, the labour court reduced the punishment from stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of one increment. The finding of misconduct on the charges was confirmed by the labour court and as such interference in reduction of punishment was not justified.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner has also argued that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter since Section 11A of the Act gives powers to the Labour Courts, Tribunals to give appropriate relief only in case of discharge or dismissal of the workman. This contention is not sustainable. Section 10 authorities an appropriate government to refer disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and they are bound to decide the matter accordingly. Section 11A of the Act is on a different footing and pertains to power of the labour Court to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. In the instant case, the matter was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication and the labour court decided the reference.

In view of the above the writ petition is partly allowed. The finding of the labour court on charge sheet dated 21.7.1983 is affirmed and the finding of the labour court on charge sheet dated 19.6.1987 are set aside.

No order as to costs.