State of Punjab vs Tarlochan Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 6.3.1985, copy Annexure P/1, vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with all benefits and continuity of service and full bad wages.

The case of the respondent was that he was working as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways and his services were wrongly terminated. The case of the peti- tioner is that regular enquiry was held against the petitioner and after holding the enquiry, his services were terminated.

The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper, however, it found that the appreciation of the evidence by the Enquiry Officer was not correct. The petitioner, as stated above, was a conductor and the charge against him was that while conducting a bus on Manali-Chandigarh route he had collected a sum of Rs. 76-80 from a passenger who also had goods which were equal to freight of two tickets from Manali to Chandigarh but had not issued the tickets and the Flying Squad collected from him three unpunched tickets of the said amount after detecting the irregularity in the course of checking. The respondent did not deny that his bus was checked by the Flying Squad. His version which he gave in the earliest which was found on the enquiry file by the Labour Court is that a passenger boarded his bus at Manali for Chandigarh with load and for that load he had issued additional ticket to him after collecting from him a sum of Rs. 51-20 and in the course of checking at ''Aut'' he realised that the passenger was not in the bus and had been left behind but the staff took three unpunched tickets from him without any justification. He had further stated that since the owner of the luggage was not in the bus, he deposited the luggage at the workshop of the Roadways and in accordance with the orders of the General Manager, Inspector Sat Pal checked that luggage and informed that the luggage was equal to the freight of one ticket. He has also stated that the owner concerned took the delivery of that luggage from the workshop after producing his unchecked tickets and gave in writing that he was left behind on the route.

The Labour Court found that it was not clear as to how the Inspector could mention in the report and the statement before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent had collected fare equal to three tickets from Manali to Chandigarh from a passenger having luggage equal to freight of two tickets and did not issue tickets to him, when admittedly that passenger was not found travelling at the time of checking. It is further observed that one could understand if the allegation had been that owner of the luggage had loaded it from Manali for being taken on that bus to Chandigarh by paying some amount as bribe to the respondent but the said allegation without the passenger being there in the bus, is too absurd to be believed. The Labour Court further observed that it was not the case of the said Inspectors that any one else travelling in the bus told them about the respondent having been paid fare equal to three tickets by some one with luggage without tickets being issued.

The Labour Court found that the conclusion drawn by the Inspector in this regard was based on conjectures and surmises.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued mat the Labour Court could not re-appraise the evidence when the enquiry was found to be proper. As against this, counsel for the respondent has cited the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, . It has been held by the Supreme Court that even where the dismissal of a workman by an employer on ground of misconduct is preceded by a proper and valid domestic enquiry, Section 11 -A of the Act, now empowers the Labour Court or Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and examine the correctness of the finding thereof.

In view of this law laid down by the Supreme Court, the act of the Labour Court in re-appraising the evidence cannot be said to be fallacious. There is no reason as to why the findings arrived at by the Labour Court should be disturbed, they being well reasoned.

It may also be mentioned here that it is the admitted position that the respondent has been re-instated since long and has been paid back wages.

In view of the above reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.