U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Hidayatullah Khan and another

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the impugned award dated 15.2.2011 passed by the labour court/respondent No. 2 by which the workman/respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated in service, but he will not be entitled for any benefit during the period of unemployment.

The brief facts of the case are that the workman/respondent No. 1 has been charged for alleged embezzlement of R 9,683 by manipulation in the way bill and tickets for which he was charge-sheeted on 12.1.2004; that the workman/respondent No. 1 moved an application for change of the inquiry officer, but the inquiry was concluded without considering his request. Thereafter, on 5.9.2005, a show cause notice was issued to the workman/respondent No. 1 with inquiry report and proposed punishment to which the workman/respondent No. 1 submitted reply. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.6.2006 with direction to recover R 9,683 from his dues. The workman preferred a departmental appeal against the order dated 8.6.2006 which was rejected. He then raised an industrial dispute in respect of his dismissal from service, but respondent No. 2 passed the impugned award in favour of workman/respondent No. 1. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite full opportunity being given to the workman/respondent No. 1 by the inquiry officer to produce evidence on record, he has failed to prove his case; that the labour court has completely ignored the findings of the departmental enquiry in awarding the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1; that the labour court has completely ignored the cross-examination of workman/respondent No. 1 in which he himself admitted cutting and mistake in the way bill.

In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(1) Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R.T.C.) v. A.T. Mane, 2005 SCC (L & S) 407.

(2) West Bokaro Colliery (T.I.S.C.O. Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh, (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 890.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the labour court after recording finding of fact in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1, has rightly passed the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent No. 1 as the workman had been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself. The relevant portion regarding denial of opportunity recorded by the labour court reads thus:

(Vernacular matter deleted)

It has further been held that the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated as the workman was deliberately denied fair and proper hearing; that procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was illegal and that the rules and regulations for domestic enquiry were given a go-bye precluding the workman to bring on record evidence and witnesses in support of his case.

In the case of West Bokaro Colliery (T.I.S.C.O. Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh (supra), the Court was considering Section 11A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in that context it has been held that where two views are possible on evidence, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with the findings arrived at in domestic enquiry as standard of proof in domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as he is required in criminal case. In that case plea of alibi was accepted by the Tribunal which was not based on any evidence as the award of the labour court was set aside holding that general proposition of law accepted that labour court can award lesser punishment in a given case.

In the other case, Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R.T.C.) v. A. T. Mane (supra), it was held that examination of passengers of vehicle from whom the said sum was collected, was not essential. It was further held that there was other material to establish misconduct of respondent and moreover possession of said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent/workman, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct.

In the instant case, the labour court has found that witnesses could not prove the case of the department. The court below has noted detailed procedure and has come to the conclusion that there is no possibility of embezzling money. According to the finding of the labour court, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse and against evidence and material on record. In this regard relevant portion of labour court''s finding is thus:

(Vernacular matter deleted)

As regards conclusion by the enquiry officer is concerned the labour court in its award held that proceedings are perverse and against the record. The relevant part of the finding are:

(Vernacular matter deleted)

The Court accordingly concluded by recording finding of facts that termination of service of the employee Hidayatulla w.e.f. 8.6.2006 is illegal and unjustified and that he is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity from the aforesaid date without any back wages.

From the above finding, it is apparent that the labour court has entered into every aspect of the matter and the evidence recorded by the employer to prove its case. Admittedly, there has been no irregularity, illegality or misconduct found during checking at very stages by the department and the amount deposited by the workman/respondent was found to be correct. As regards other lying way bill is concerned, explanation of respondent/workman was found sufficient by the labour court that due to paucity of conductors the department was putting on duty the drivers who were not given training. Thus, the cases cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

For all the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the finding of facts recorded by the court below. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.