The Divisional Controller NEKRTC vs Gadigeppa

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, a public road Transport Corporation having initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-conductor over the allegation of misconduct of carrying 20 passengers in the bus without collecting fares in the discharge of duties during the year 2001 resulted in the order dated 18.03.2002 imposing the punishment of withholding five increments, for proved misconduct. Respondent initiating conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act) following which the State Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, registered as I.D. No. 94/2007. In that proceeding, the Industrial Tribunal having framed a preliminary issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner over the misconduct, returned a finding holding that the enquiry was fair and proper. There afterwards, on the merit of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal having recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the workman was proved, nevertheless, observed that the punishment of withholding five increments was disproportionate to the charge proved and accordingly, interfered with the order of punishment and reduced the punishment to withholding two increments, in the Judgment and Award dated 26.02.2010 - Annexure-D. Hence, this petition. Indisputably, Section 11A of the Act applies only in the case of dismissal from service of a workman. In other words, the Industrial Tribunal can exercise a jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal and modify the same by imposing a lesser punishment if the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and not otherwise as held by the Apex Court in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, .

In that view of the matter, this petition succeeds. The award dated 26.02.2010 - Annexure-D insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of withholding five increments of the respondent for proved misconduct is quashed, restoring the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejecting the reference. Insofar as the direction to pay subsistence allowance, if not paid to the respondent, during the period of suspension, remains unaltered.