AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(RSRTC) have challenged the award dated 16.04.2002 passed by
the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred as
''the Trial Court'') as well as the Notification dated 18.08.1998
whereby the dispute was referred by the State Government for
adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner.
The short conspectus of facts needed to be noted for
disposal of the writ petition are that the respondent workman was
employed as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation initially on
10.08.1984. His services were dispensed with on ground of
misconduct on 17.07.1986 and it was informed that his services
are no more required. The respondent No.1 while discharging the
duties was found to have been carrying 43 passengers without
ticket. Although he had released the fare from the passengers and
on inspection of the vehicle, a remark was put to this effect in the
way bill and the bus checking report was prepared, which was duly
signed by the respondent-workman and the driver of the bus. A
complaint was also filed and the original way bill and the bus
checking report were filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
(Transport) Bikaner.
The Workman conductor raised a dispute on 18.08.1998
regarding his wrongful termination and the conciliation
proceedings failed and accordingly the State Government referred
the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bikaner
vide notification dated 18.08.1998. The statement of claim was
submitted by the respondent wherein it was submitted that the
respondent had filed suit before the Court of Additional Munsiff &
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur on 19.07.1989 to 17.10.1995
however, in view of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme
Court in AIR 1995 (SC) 1715 RSRTC Vs. Krishna Kant holding
that Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to decide the matter
relating to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent withdrew
the civil suit and raised the dispute. The period from 19.07.1989
to 17.10.1995 cannot be said to have been delayed on the part of
the petitioner.
It was stated further in this case that petitioner had worked
with the respondents from 10.08.1984 and there has been non-
compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1947''). It was also stated
that his selection was in regular pay scale and an inquiry was
required to be initiated and which was not done. Provisions of
Section 25-G & H of the Act of 1947 as well as Rules 77 & 78 of
the Standing Orders were not complied with. It was further stated
that there was no passenger who was traveling without ticket in
the vehicle but the Inspector Sayar Singh raised some illegal
demand, which he refused, therefore a wrongful remark had been
put by Inspector Sayar Singh on the waybill. The petitioner''s bag
was also not checked for the purpose of checking. The petitioner
filed their reply to the statement of claim and denied assertions
made by them. It was also pointed out that upon checking, the
respondent was carrying 43 passengers without giving them
tickets and he had already obtained the money for tickets which
was found in his bag and the same was entered in way bill. In
additional plea, it was also mentioned that earlier too, the
respondent had been removed from services on having committed
misconduct on 08.02.1985 but on his request, he was again
reinstated on 17.04.1985. He was again removed on 05.04.1986
and was again reinstated on 17.05.1986 and ultimately his
services were dispensed with by an order dated 17.07.1986 and in
this manner, he did not work for 240 days in the preceding
calender year. Affidavits were submitted before the Court and the
Labour Court found that no application was moved by the RSRTC
for conducting an inquiry either in his reply to the claim petition.
A request was made for amending the reply. On making such a
prayer, the Labour Court allowed the RSRTC to lead evidence.
However, after considering the evidence, which was led by the
RSRTC and after examining the oral and documentary evidence,
the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the order of
removal from service was not justified and legal and the
respondent has been reinstated with 30% back wages.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Labour
Court proceeded on presumptions and assumptions. It has been
submitted that there were enough documents to hold that the
respondent was guilty of committing misconduct. Although, the
Labour Court had allowed the petitioner to lead evidence vide
order dated 01.04.2000. It is submitted that the learned Labour
Court was not competent to review its order and disallowed the
RSRTC for making amendment in the pleadings. It is further
submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly read the evidence
brought before it and has wrongly interpreted the statements
recorded before it. Merely because no passenger came forward
nor anyone have been named to show that the respondent had
taken money and had not issued the ticket to him, it cannot be
assumed that the checking report was wrong. It has been
submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse and this
Court ought to look into evidence which per-se shows that the
respondent-workman had committed misconduct. It is further
submitted that the dispute was raised after lapse of more than 10
years, merely because the respondent had raised the dispute
before the Civil Court i.e. before a wrong Forum, therefore, benefit
cannot be extended to the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the charge was of a serious nature and the
punishment of removal is proper.
The writ petition was admitted, notices were issued and
award dated 16.04.2002 was stayed by this Court vide order
dated 02.09.2003 and since then the case is pending.
Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has pointed out
that findings of facts have been given by the Labour Court, which
cannot be interfered with by this Court while sitting under
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted that appreciation of evidence and substituting of
opinion, cannot be made by this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Interference to award passed by the Labour
Court is limited and within the frame work where there is a
jurisdictional error or where illegality is apparent on the face of
the record or there is a complete perversity.
Having heard both the counsel for the parties and after
scanning the record carefully, this Court finds that the Labour
Court while passing the award has although observed that RSRTC
did not make any request for conducting inquiry at the stage
before the Labour Court but inspite of the same, it has also
examined the merits of the case as to whether the respondent-
workman was guilty of the charges. The Labour Court while
exercising its powers discussed the aspect regarding 43
passengers traveling without ticket and reached to a finding that
on the basis of statement made by Sayar Singh, who was
inspector, that the 43 passengers cannot be said to be traveling
without ticket. The inspector admitted in his cross examination
that he had not checked cash with the conductor and that he had
merely noted down the statements of the passengers. Even the
way bill on which the remark is alleged to have been made, was
not submitted before the Court. It was also found by the Labour
Court that the allegation of respondent-workman had signed the
checking report was also incorrect. The Labour Court has rightly
reached to the conclusion that as there were 86 passengers in the
bus and the bus had only travelled 4 kms from the place it
started, the petitioner cannot be said to have allowed the
passengers to travel without ticket as already 43 of them had
been granted ticket and remaining were in the process of receiving
the ticket.
Therefore, it can be said that there is a complete finding of
fact arrived at by the competent Court which cannot be held to be
perverse. A finding has been arrived at that the conductor was
in process of distributing tickets to passengers and the only
mistake which he committed is of allowing to start the vehicle
before completing the work of distributing ticket which is different
from the charge levelled against him.
On the question of backwages also, the Court has given its
finding that only 30% back wages have been allowed and
reinstatement has been allowed from 18.08.1998. Taking into
consideration, the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the
case of Sadhana Lodh v.National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr .
(2003) 3 SCC 524. Para 7 of the judgment in the case of
Sadhana Lodh (Supra) is as under:-
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
This Court finds that no interference is called for by this
Court in the award passed by the Labour Court. However, in view
that the Court had stayed the effect and operation of the award
way back in the Year 2003 and almost 14 years have lapsed, the
relief granted by the Labour Court requires to be moulded.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction
that respondent-workman be allowed to be reinstated in service
with continuity of service. However, no back wages be paid to
him. His pay and allowances shall be only notionally fixed from
the date of his termination till the date of passing of this order.
Compliance of the order may now be made within a period of
three months.
Ordered accordingly.