U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs State of U.P. and Others

Prakash Krishna, J.—Om Prakash Mishra, respondent No. 3 herein, who was posted as conductor on 7.6.1969 on Bus No. UMV 9829, plying on Mirzapur Anpara route, was checked by Checking Authorities namely Sri K.N. Chaturvedi and Baldeo Prasad, Assistant Traffic Inspectors along with other persons. Thirty three passengers were found travelling without tickets. The respondent No. 3 had torn twenty tickets which were not entered in the way bill. It was further found that he permitted unbooked luggage in the Bus. It was the first misconduct. Again, on 20th of July, 1989, when the respondent No. 3 was posted as conductor on Bus No. URG 435 which was checked by Sri Heera Lal Upadhyaya, Senior Station Incharge along with the other members of the team, the respondent No. 3 was found carrying passengers without issuing tickets. It was the second misconduct.

On the basis of the facts as found on the aforestated two occasions, a departmental inquiry was conducted against respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was held guilty of misconduct and consequently, his services were terminated on 13.8.1990. Being aggrieved by the termination order, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 3. It was registered as Adjudication Case No. 154 of 1992. The Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad by the impugned award dated 30.5.1994 found that the said departmental inquiry was conducted in a fair manner. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment awarded to the workman is harsh and deserves to be interfered with, and it was ordered by the Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in service and be given half back wages and other benefits admissible to him treating him in continuous service. The legality and validity of the said award has been questioned by the petitioner employer in the present petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal itself that the respondent No. 3 has misconducted by not obeying the ''Pay and Board Rules'' twice hardly within a period of two months, exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the termination order and ordering the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. H.H. Pujar (2008) 12 SCC 698 and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam v. Sharma, (2002) 1 LLJ 234 SC

Considered the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and find sufficient force therein. It is a duty of conductor of a Bus to collect fares from the persons boarding on the Bus. He is required to perform his duty sincerely and honestly. In the present case, on two occasions within a span of less than two months it was found that the said respondent (conductor) allowed the persons to travel without tickets. The Industrial Tribunal has observed that "it is true that the conductor is guilty of not following the rule of ''pay and board'' and making relevant entries in the way bill simultaneously but to think that the conductor is guilty of other charges is based on inference in the facts and circumstances of the case which might be true or incorrect. In such a circumstance the benefit of doubt should go to the workman concerned."

The fact remains that the charge that respondent No. 3 is guilty of not following the the rule of ''pay and board'' and making the relevant entry in the way bill is sufficient to justify the order of termination or not. It has been held in the following cases that such a guilty person is not to be retained in service of conductor:

State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh,

Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane,

Even otherwise also as held by the Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and power to interfere with the quantum of punishment, is fully attracted. In this case, it has been held that it is the main duty or function of conductor to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Corporation concerned and when a conductor fails to do so then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal. The same view has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. H.H. Pujar (supra).

Applying the ratio of the aforestated judgments of the Apex Court, the order of the Labour Court ordering the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 is without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to stand and the same is hereby set aside.

But before parting with the case, it may be noticed that this Court while entertaining the writ petition by the order dated 10th of March, 1999 provided as a condition of stay to reinstate the respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the impugned award subject to the result of the writ petition and to pay his wages as per requirement of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. As a result of success of the present writ petition, the order of termination is liable to be restored back but it is provided that the wages which have been paid and received by the respondent No. 3, if any, for the work done in pursuance of the stay order passed by this Court shall not be claimed back by the petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The award dated 30.5.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Adjudication Case No. 154 of 1992 is set aside and it is held that the services of Om Prakash Mishra (Conductor), respondent No. 3, were validly terminated on 11.11.1992. But no order as to costs.