@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThe second Respondent was employed as a Conductor in the writ Petitioner Corporation.
2. On 29.07.1988, he was working in the bus bearing Registration No. TML 2162, running between Madurai and Tuticorin. The bus started its trip at 04.30 a.m at Madurai. When the bus entered into Aruppukottai, three Checking Inspectors got into the bus. They found that there were 29 passengers but as per the invoice 24 tickets were issued. Hence, they checked each passenger and found that 5 of them were without tickets.
3. According to the Checking Inspectors, one group of four passengers stated to them that they got into the bus at Madurai to travel to Aruppukottai and they paid Rs. 20/-and the conductor returned Rs. 1.20/-and he did not issue four tickets for them. Though Rs. 18.80/-was collected by the conductor, he did not issue tickets for the group of four passengers. According to the Checking Inspectors, the other passenger stated to them that he got into the bus at Kariapatti to travel to Aruppukottai and he paid Rs. 2/-to the conductor and the conductor returned 0.20 paise and he did not issued ticket for Rs. 1.80/-.
4. According to the Checking Officials they checked the cash bag and found that there was an excess amount of a sum of Rs. 166.40/-in the cash bag. The Checking Inspectors received a statement from one among the four persons from the group and also another statement from the other person. In the said statement, the driver also signed.
5. Based on the checking, the Checking Officials gave a complaint on 02.08.1988; based on the complaint, a charge-sheet dated 06.08.1988 was issued to the Petitioner, alleging four charges.
(i). He collected Rs. 18.80/-from four persons, who travelled from Madurai to Arupukkotai, but failed to issue tickets.
(ii). He collected Rs. 1.80/-from a passenger, who travelled from Kariapatti to Arupukkotai, but failed to issue ticket.
(iii). The Petitioner admitted to misappropriation of Rs. 20.60/-.
(iv). There was an excess amount of Rs. 166.40/-in cash bag.
6. The Petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 06.08.1988 with effect from 14.08.1988. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. He stated that the allegations were baseless and if the Checking Officials and the passengers are examined in the enquiry truth would come out. Thereafter, the writ Petitioner passed an order dated 06.09.1988, revoking the suspension with effect from 14.09.1988.
7. The writ Petitioner appointed an official of the Corporation as the enquiry officer. In the enquiry one of the Checking Officials was examined as a witness of the Department. The workman examined two passengers in the enquiry, who gave the alleged statement to the Checking Officials. The workman also deposed in the enquiry.
8. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 07.01.1989, holding that the charges were established. He did not agree with the deposition of the passengers, who gave evidence in favour of the conductor. He relied on the statements given to the Checking Officials, though the passengers disowned those statements and stated that those statements were not voluntarily given by them.
9. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 13.02.1989.
10. The second Respondent raised an Industrial Dispute regarding his non-employment before the Conciliation officer u/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the conciliation ended in failure, he took up the matter before the first Respondent. The first Respondent took it on file in I.D. No. 176 of 1995.
11. The writ Petitioner filed a counter-statement refuting the allegations made in the claim statement.
12. Before the Labour Court, both sides did not let in evidence. On the side of the writ Petitioner entire enquiry proceedings were filed and the documents Exs.M1 to M14 were marked. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court framed two issues.
(i) Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman is proper?
(ii) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the petition?
13. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the enquiry was fairly conducted giving all opportunities to the workman. Regarding the other issue, the Labour Court found that the passengers were examined by the workman in the enquiry and they disowned the statements. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the driver, who also signed in the statement, was not examined in the enquiry. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that when the Department alleged that there was an excess of Rs. 166.40/-, the workman stated that he made an endorsment in the invoice that Rs. 180/-was his personal cash.
14. these circumstances, the Labour Court recorded that the dismissal was not warranted and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement without backwages but with continuity of service by an order dated 23.09.2003 in I.D. No. 176 of 1995.
15. The writ Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the award dated 23.09.2003 in I.D. No. 176 of 1995.
16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court committed error in ordering reinstatement. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Labour Court was not correct in ordering reinstatement when the workman was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of Rs. 20.60/-.
17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and I have also perused the original records, based on which the Labour Court passed the impugned order.
18. The Labour Court has gone into detail about the facts of the case. The Labour Court found on facts that though the checking took place on 29.07.1988, the Checking Officials gave a report after three days on 03.08.1988. The Labour Court also took into account relevant facts that the concerned passengers gave evidence in the enquiry disowing the statement recorded by the Checking Officials. When the Checking Officials recorded in the statement that the four passengers got into the bus at Madurai to travel to Aruppukottai, the concerned person deposed in the enquiry, that he got into the bus only at Palayampatti and not in Madurai. The other person, who gave evidence also stated that he got into the bus at Palayampatti and not at Kariayapatti and both the passengers did not gave fare for their travel.
19. Taking into account, the aforesaid evidence and also the endorsment made by the conductor in the invoice that he kept his own amount, the Labour Court thought it fit to exercise power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that dismissal is not proper punishment and the Labour Court deprived entire backwages.
20. The finding of the Labour Court on facts would not be interfered with by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court exercised its power that is vested u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court reappraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the punishment was not warranted and interferred with the same.
21. It is well settled that the Labour Court has power u/s 11A to re-appreciate the evidence and to interfere in the order of dismissal imposed by the Management.
22. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 176 of 1995 dated 23.09.2003. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.
