Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2340 1999
Appeal (civil) 2342 1999
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGEMENT OF SHRI GANAPATI BUS SERVICE THIRUNELVELI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
These Appeals are against a common Judgment dated 30th
June, 1998, where under three appeals were dismissed.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The Appellant has
terminated the services of three of its Conductors. Those
Conductors had challenged the termination before the Labour
Court. The Labour Court had, by three Awards, set aside the
termination of all the three workmen and directed
reinstatement in all the three cases. The Appellant had
then filed three Writ Petitions in the High Court of Madras.
All those Writ Petitions came to be dismissed by a common
Judgment dated 20th June, 1997. Against that Judgment the
Appellant had filed three Appeals which were dismissed by
the impugned Judgment dated 30th June, 1998. The concerned
Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2340 and 2341 of 1999 have
not appeared before this Court even though served. The
Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 1999 is represented
by Mrs. S. Usha Reddy. We have heard the parties, perused
the Awards and the Judgment of the Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench. Mr. Iyer took us through the Counters
filed by the Appellant in all the three cases and pointed
out that in all those Counters the Appellant had prayed that
the validity of the domestic enquiry be tried as a
preliminary issue and in case it was held that the enquiry
was not valid and proper the Respondents may be permitted to
lead evidence to substantiate their contention on the
charges framed against the Appellants. He submitted that,
therefore, the question whether the enquiry was valid and
proper should have been tried as a preliminary issue and
thereafter the Appellant should have been given an
opportunity of leading evidence. In support of his
submission he has relied upon an authority in the case of
Shankar Chakravarti v. Britania Biscuit Co. Ltd. reported
in (1979) 3 SCC 371, in which it was held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Management must seek an opportunity to lead evidence by
making a specific request at an appropriate stage. He
submitted that such an opportunity having not been given the
Awards were wrong and the same should be set aside. We see
no substance in this submission. In all the three cases the
Labour Court had found that the enquiry was proper and
valid. It is for other reasons, set out hereinafter, that
the Labour Court had directed reinstatement. In that event,
in all the three cases the Appellants being given
opportunity to lead evidence after such a finding before the
Labour Court did not arise. In our view, whether or not the
enquiry was valid and proper though not tried as a
preliminary issue has not prejudiced the Appellants in any
manner. If the answer to that question had been in the
negative, perhaps an occasion to consider the arisen.
question raised by the learned counsel would have It was
next submitted that in all the three cases it has been found
that the Conductors had not collected fares from passengers.
It was submitted that the Appellant had lost confidence in
these Conductors and that, therefore, there could be no
order directing reinstatement. It was submitted that for
this reason also there should have been no order directing
reinstatement. To understand this submission brief facts
need to be noted. In the first case, on surprise
inspections on 2.8.1988 and 24.10.1988 it was found that
only one passenger had not been issued a ticket and on the
second date 2 passengers did not have tickets. In the
second case, on surprise inspection on 2.1.1989 it was found
that all the passengers had been issued tickets. However a
small medical box was being carried on the roof of the bus.
Luggage charges had not been recovered for that. On
4.2.1989 it was found that a small boy of 12 years had been
issued a half ticket, instead of a full ticket. In the
third case, all that had happened was that on 9.4.1989 on
inspection it was found that a plaintain leaf bundle was
being carried on the roof of the bus without luggage charges
having been levied. In the first case, the Labour Court
came to the conclusion that there had been sufficient
punishment inasmuch as during the period of suspension pay
had not been paid. The Labour Court found that the
punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge
inasmuch as the charge was only that there would have been a
loss of Rs. 4.80. The Labour Court also found that before
awarding punishment of dismissal no show-cause-notice as to
the quantum of punishment had been issued to the Conductor.
In the second case, on evidence the Labour Court came to the
conclusion that the medical box was in fact a very small box
for which there could have been no luggage charges. It also
came to the conclusion on evidence that the boy was only of
12 years of age and, therefore, he had rightly been issued a
half ticket. In the third case, the Labour Court found on
evidence that a plaintain leaf bundle could only be charged
proved it had more than 400 leaves. The claim of the
Conductor was that the plaintain leaf bundle did not even
have 100 leaves. This was supported by the evidence of the
passenger. In the enquiry it had not been established as to
how many leaves the bundle had. The learned Single Judge of
the High Court had agreed with the reasoning given by the
Labour Court. We also see no reason to take a different
view. In our view, neither the Awards nor the Judgment of
the Single Judge nor the Judgement of the Division Bench
requires any interference.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Accordingly, these Appeals stand dismissed. There
will be no Order as to costs.@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ