State of Punjab and Another vs Surat Singh and Another

Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.—This petition has been directed against the award (Annexure P.1), dated 19th May 1983, of the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby termination of services of the Respondent-workman was held not justified and in order and, as a consequence thereof, he was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and fifty per cent of back wages.

The facts, as found by the Labour Court, arc undisputed. The Respondent was working as a Conductor with the Petitioner Punjab Roadways, Muktsar. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 375 per mensem. He had about 8 years'' service to his credit at the relevant time. The Respondent was accused of having defrauded the Management to the tune of Rs. 7.45 as it was found that, on a particular day while on duty on a bus, he had charged the said sum by way of fare from the passengers and had not issued tickets to them. This finding was arrived at after a proper enquiry conducted by one Ram Saran Dass, Works Manager, Enquiry Officer. On the basis of that enquiry, the services of the Respondent-workman were terminated.

The Respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Patiala to determine:

Whether termination of services of Shri Surat Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?

The parties put their respective pleas; the workman challenging his termination and claiming reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and the Management asserting that the termination was valid, having been done after holding a proper and fair enquiry. On these pleas, the following two issues, were struck by the Labour Court:

Whether there has been a fair and proper enquiry?

Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?

Under issue No. 1, the finding was returned in favour of the Management. Rather it was conceded on behalf of the workman that there was a fair and proper enquiry against him. Under issue No. 2, it was held that, as a result of enquiry, the workman was held guilty of defrauding the Management to the tune of Rs. 7.45, by the Enquiry Officer. In the matter of punishment, the Labour Court agreed with the representative of the workman, suggesting that the order of dismissal was harsh justifying invocation of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to award lesser punishment. And yet, losing conspectus of the whole thing, the Labour Court, instead of awarding lesser punishment, returned the finding on issue No. 2 in favour of the workman and against the Management, in sequel of which reinstatement of the workman was ordered with continuity of service and fifty per cent of back wages. So, the punishment, if at all, deducibly summed up to withholding of fifty per cent of back wages. It is this view of the Labour Court which is under challenge.

The proposition is well settled that u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has the power to alter the punishment but only in those cases where the punishment is so harsh so as to suggest victimization. See, in this connection. The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, and a decision of this Court in The General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh v. Ranjit Singh and Anr. 1982 Lab. I.C. 604. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has gone to the view that the punishment awarded to the workman was harsh. But there is no finding that it was suggestive of victimization. The award is singularly silent not only on this aspect but also on the broader aspect as to whether it would be prudent to put the workman-Respondent back to the same employment involving day-to-day handling of money. In a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmeddbad v. Jamnadas Bacharbhai 1983 Lab. I.C. 1349. M.P. Thakkar, the then Chief Justice (who now adorns the Supreme Court), speaking for the Bench, in some what similar circumstances, observed as follows:

Under the circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in reinstating a conductor who had Collected fare, pocketed the same, and robbed the national Exchequer, in the same post where he could reindulge in the same weakness at public cost. The Labour Court can, depending upon facts and circumstances of the case and of the offender, direct that he should be absorbed in the workshop section or some other similar post which does not involve daily handling of money. That must be left to the Labour Court. And the Labour Court would have to decide the issue having regard to facts and circumstances of each case and the demands of the situation in the context of each matter.

I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat High Court. The Labour Court having found the Respondent-workman to have indulged in fraud, his reinstatement justifiably could not be ordered to the post of a Conductor. If the punishment had to be mitigated, it being harsh so as to suggest victimization, it could be brought down to other milder forms. But this did not mean that necessarily the Respondent-workman had to be put to the same job or, for that matter, a job in all events. As said by the Gujarat High Court, and in my view rightly, following of such course would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. And whether the present is a case of that kind would have to be redetermined by the Labour Court afresh in the right perspective of things.

For the view above taken, there is no escape but to allow the writ-petition, quash the impugned award so far as it relates to the finding on issue No. 2 and the relief granted thereunder. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the Labour Court, Patiala, to redecide the question in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations aforemade. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to casts.