The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs Jyotirlingappa

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner/Corporation has filed the above writ petition against the award dated 18th May, 2012 made in I.D. No. 158/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli modifying the punishment of withholding one ensuing increment of the respondent with cumulative effect as to withholding of one increment of the workman for the year 1989 for a period of one year only without cumulative effect and consequential benefits.

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent/workman was working as a conductor under the petitioner/Corporation. On 11.1.1989 when he was discharging his duties in the bus bearing No. F 9816 plying on route from Hirekerur to Siralakoppa, the checking officials of the Corporation checked the said bus during which it was found that there were 21 passengers in the bus. Out of them, the respondent has failed to issue valid tickets to two passengers despite collecting fare amount of Rs. 2.25/- from each of them. Thereafter, the checking officials issued articles of charges on the spot and recorded the statement of ticketless passengers and obtained un-punched tickets from the ticket tray of the respondents and reported to the Disciplinary Authority. On the basis of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority issued articles of charges to the respondent, who submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, after considering the entire material on record, by an order dated 9.9.1992 imposed punishment withholding one increment of the respondent with cumulative effect. It is the further case of the petitioner that after a lapse of 15 years, the respondent raised conciliation proceedings. On failure of the same, the Government by its order dated 28.10.2008 referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Tribunal permitted both the parties to adduce evidence. The workman examined himself as W.W. 1 and marked the documents as Ex. W. 1 to 4. On behalf of the petitioner/Corporation, two witnesses were examined as M.W. 1 and 2 and got marked one document as Ex. M.1

After considering the entire material on record, the labour Court by its award modified the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority into withholding of one increment for the year 1989 for a period of one year only without cumulative effect which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of the workman with all monetary benefits. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation.

Sri K.S. Abhijith for Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once the finding is recorded that the charges are proved, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify the punishment imposed under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and it ought to have rejected the dispute solely on the ground of delay and laches of 15 years on the part of the workman to raise an industrial dispute. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

Per contra, Sri S.P. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the workman sought to justify the impugned award.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was working as a conductor in the year 1989, when the checking officials found that the respondent has failed to issue two tickets of Rs. 2.25/- each and two tickets of Rs. 0.75 each despite collecting amount from the passengers and hence, issued articles of charges to him for which the respondent has replied to the said charges. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply, considering the entire material on record imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment of the respondent with cumulative effect. It is also not in dispute that the respondent raised conciliation proceedings after a lapse of 15 years. The Tribunal while considering the entire material both oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a specific finding that, "In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence on record, there is no other alternative except to hold that the misconduct attributed against the workman stands established". When the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the charges levelled against the workman has been proved, the Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence on record can accept the punishment imposed in toto or set aside the punishment imposed by the Corporation in entirety, but it has no jurisdiction to modify the same, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the punishment imposed by the Corporation is other than the punishment as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the case of The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, at para-16 has held as follows:

"The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11-A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11-A in Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and Another Vs. Their Workmen, this court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation etc., in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11-A are illustrated by this court in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, . When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimisation or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11-A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry."

In view of the admitted facts that the charges levelled against the workman have been held to be proved by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Tribunal. In view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be modified by the Tribunal.

In view of the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 18.5.2012 passed in I.D. No. 158/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli vide Annexure-B is set aside and the reference stands rejected.