Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4520 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5120 of 2007)
North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corpn. ...Appellant
Versus
H.H. Pujar ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the writ appeal
no.3830/2005 dismissing appeal against the order of learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17519/2000. The writ appeal
was dismissed as not maintainable and, therefore, the
challenge in the present is essential to the order of learned
Single Judge.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent-Conductor was commissioning as such in
Bus No. F-16 on 15.9.1993 when the bus was intercepted by
the checking staff. It was found that the respondent had not
issued tickets to 20 out of 136 passengers. Appellant
conducted domestic enquiry which found him guilty.
Consequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated
3.4.1995. The same was challenged by the respondent before
the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). The Labour Court held
that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper on the basis of
the memorandum filed by the respondent conceding to the
fairness of the domestic inquiry. However, the Labour Court
set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of
respondent with full back wages, continuity of service and
2
other consequential benefits. The basis for this order was non-
checking of cash bag of the respondent and non-examination
of ticketless passengers. The order was challenged before the
High Court. By order dated 21.10.2005, the learned Single
Judge held that the order was correct so far as setting aside
dismissal order is concerned, direction for reinstatement and
continuity of service and consequential benefits. However, the
direction relating to back wages was set aside. The writ
appeal as noted above, was dismissed on the ground that the
same was not maintainable.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the primary reason indicated by the
Labour Court to hold that the order of dismissal was bad, was
the alleged non-examination of the passengers to whom the
respondent had not issued the tickets. It also did not find any
substance in the stand of the Corporation that earlier also on
12 occasions for similar charges punishments were awarded
but the respondent did not improve his conduct. The High
Court found that the conclusions of the Labour Court were
3
correct. It was noted that if more passengers were carried
within the permissible limit, it was fault of the Corporation
who did not took timely reformative and remedial measures.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
view expressed by the High Court is clearly contrary to the law
laid down by this Court. Further, when the respondent himself
conceded to the fairness of the proceedings and the fact that
he had not issued tickets to twenty passengers, their non-
examination is of no consequences.
6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
7. In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977 (2)
SCC 491), it was, inter alia, held as follows:
“4. It is well settled that in a domestic
enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may
not apply. All materials which are logically
probative for a prudent mind are permissible.
There is no allergy to hearsay evidence
4
provided it has reasonable nexus and
credibility. It is true that departmental
authorities and Administrative Tribunals must
be careful in evaluating such material and
should not glibly swallow what is strictly
speaking not relevant under the Indian
Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not
necessary to cite decisions nor text books,
although we have been taken through case-
law and other authorities by counsel on both
sides. The essence of a judicial approach is
objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials
or considerations and observance of rules of
natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis
and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or
surrender of independence of judgment vitiate
the conclusions reached, such finding, even
though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held
good. However, the courts below misdirected
themselves, perhaps, in insisting that
passengers who had come in and gone out
should be chased and brought before the
tribunal before a valid finding could be
recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which counsel
for the respondent referred, based upon
certain passages from American
Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor
does the passage from Halsbury insist on such
rigid requirement. The simple point is, was
there some evidence or was there no evidence
— not in the sense of the technical rules
governing regular court proceedings but in a
fair commonsense way as men of
understanding and worldly wisdom will accept.
Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in
proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is
beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in
support of a finding is certainly available for
the court to look into because it amounts to an
5
error of law apparent on the record. We find, in
this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal,
Inspector of the Flying Squad, is some
evidence which has relevance to the charge
levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we
are unable to hold that the order is invalid on
that ground.
5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on
the non-compliance with the departmental
instruction that statements of passengers
should be recorded by inspectors. These are
instructions of prudence, not rules that bind
or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the
Inspector tried to get the statements but the
passengers declined, the psychology of the
latter in such circumstances being
understandable, although may not be
approved. We cannot hold that merely because
statements of passengers were not recorded
the order that followed was invalid. Likewise,
the re-evaluation of the evidence on the
strength of co-conductor’s testimony is a
matter not for the court but for the
Administrative Tribunal. In con- clusion, we
do not think the courts below were right in
overturning the finding of the domestic
tribunal.”
8. The view was reiterated in Divisional Controller KSRTC
(NWKSRTC) v. A.T. Mane (2004 (8) SCALE 308).
6
9. As rightly contended by the appellant since fairness of
the proceedings was conceded and the respondent admitted
that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers, their non-
examination is really of no consequence.
10. In view of what has been stated by this Court in Rattan
Singh’s case (supra) and in A.T. Mane's case (supra) award of
the Labour Court and impugned order of the High Court
cannot be maintained and are set aside. The order of
dismissal passed by the Corporation is to operate.
11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
………………………….………..J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………….……….J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi,
July 18, 2008
7