Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5094 of 2006
PETITIONER:
The Managing Director The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
RESPONDENT:
K. Murti
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2006
BENCH:
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
(@ SLP(C) No. 16719 of 2005)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Leave granted.
The sole respondent was served through the Court on
10.1.2005. However, nobody has appeared for the
respondent. We heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-Management.
This appeal is directed against the final order dated
25.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in Writ Appeal no.1565 of 2004, wherein Division
Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal filed by the
appellant herein and ordered accordingly. This Court on
22.8.2005 issued notice to the sole respondent and interim
stay was granted in the meantime. The respondent was in
the employment of the appellant Corporation as a badli
conductor . During his course of employment as badli
conductor between the period from 1992 to 1995, he had
an unedifying history of misconduct and had been
punished by imposing fine. While he was conducting the
bus on 12.8.1992, the said bus came to be checked by the
checking squad at stage no.2 and it was noticed that the
respondent had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers
despite collection of money, failed to issue tickets to 4
passengers who were travelling from Sanganakal to KEB,
Bellary and had not collected the requisite fare. The
respondent had closed the stage no.3 by keeping single digit
blank in respect of Rs.1.25 denomination with an intention
to re-issue the said denomination tickets in the next trip
and the respondent had closed the CWP against the stage
no.2 except the Rs.1.75 denomination. The Disciplinary
authority directed holding of an enquiry into the articles of
charge in terms of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971
by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after
having issued notices to both the parties conducted a
detailed enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against
the respondent. The proceedings were conducted following
the mandatory provisions of the Corporation C & D
Regulations, 1971 and affording adequate opportunity to
the delinquent workman to defend his case. The
Disciplinary Authority, on re-appraisal of the connected
records, came to the conclusion as of the Inquiry Officer
and looking at the nature of the offence and its result
passed an order on 18.5.1998 removing the name of the
respondent from the list of badli conductors.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under
section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka
Amendment) Act, 1947 challenging the legality and
correctness of the dismissal order passed against him on
18.5.1998. The Labour Court after issuing process to the
parties concerned by its order dated 2.1.2002 passed an
order holding that the enquiry held was fair and proper.
After passing of the preliminary order on issue no.1, i.e.
whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent
against the claimant is fair and proper, the matter was
posted for recording of evidence. The respondent, however,
failed to appear before the Court and accordingly the
evidence was taken as closed. Later after hearing the
arguments, instead of dismissing the petition, vide order
dated 25.3.2003 the Labour Court set aside the termination
order dated 18.5.1998 and directed the appellant-
Management to take the respondent back on the list of
badli conductors. However, the Labour Court held that the
respondent was not entitled for any back wages and
continuity of service.
The appellant-Management aggrieved by the order passed
by the Labour Court, approached the High Court of
Karnataka by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and urged several grounds
for consideration. The respondent-workman also
approached the High Court by filing writ petition.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
writ petition and thereby upheld the order passed by the
Labour Court. The Management preferred writ appeal
no.1565 of 2004 and urged several grounds for
consideration amongst others. The Division Bench by a
common order dated 25.2.2005 rejected the writ appeal
filed by the Management and also by the respondent,
thereby confirmed the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge and the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order,
the Management has come up on appeal before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Management and perused the records. In our
opinion, the order passed by the High Court is erroneous on
the face of the record. The High Court, in our opinion,
ought to have seen that the misconduct was duly
established in the enquiry and despite it, the Labour Court
had persuaded itself to reinstate the delinquent in service.
The learned Single Judge also confirmed the order passed
by the Labour Court. In our opinion, the High Court was
not justified in altering the quantum of punishment when
the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, charge was
proved and no evidence was led before the Labour Court
while questioning the order of the Disciplinary Authority
dismissing the delinquent workman. Likewise, the High
Court also failed to notice the order removing the name of
the respondent from the list of badli conductors. The High
Court has also erred in taking note of the fact that the
punishment imposed on the delinquent official was not
shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
proved against him coupled with his history and he being a
badli conductor. In our opinion, the Division Bench have
erred in rejecting the plea of the Management that the
Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement of
the respondent as regular employee on the ground that
such a plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge
when as a matter of fact the plea had been taken both
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
before the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of the
High Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant, at the time of
hearing, placed strong reliance on the two decisions of this
Court, one reported in 2002 (10) SCC 330 (Regional
Manager, RSRTC versus Ghanshyam Sharma), which was
also a case of bus conductor carrying passengers without
issuing tickets. This Court, in the above case, held that
carrying the passengers without tickets amounts to
dishonesty or grave negligence and for such misconduct
punishment of removal from service is justified. This Court
also further observed that the Labour Court was not
justified in directing the reinstatement with continuity of
service but without back wages. This Court has also relied
upon a judgment reported in 2001 (2) SCC 574 (Karnataka
SRTC vs. B.S. Hullikatti). In the said judgment, this Court
has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry
passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than
the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to
either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and
such conductors were not fit to be retained in service
because such inaction or action on the part of the
conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport
Corporation. This Court has also observed that in cases
like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.
The learned counsel for the appellant also cited judgment
reported in 2006 (6) SCC 187 (Divisional Controller,
N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh). In this case, this Court was
considering the case of misappropriation of a small amount
of State Road Transport Corporation’s fund by a conductor
and held it a grave act of misconduct, which resulted in
financial loss to the Corporation. This Court also held that
punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority did not call for any interference by
the Labour Court or the High Court and hence the order of
reinstatement passed by the High Court was set aside. This
Court also in a catena of decisions held that the Tribunal
should not sit in appeal over the decision of any employer
unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. This
Court also observed that the High Court gets jurisdiction to
interfere with the punishment in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when
it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges proved.
In the instant case, the position held by the employee
(conductor) is one of faith and trust. A conductor holds the
post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be
imposed punishment of removal from service. The
respondent’s conduct in not collecting the requisite fare at
the designated place from persons who had travelled were
in violation of various regulations contained in the
provisions of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971.
The following judgments can be usefully referred to for the
above proposition. They are:
1 V. Ramana vs. A.P. SRTC & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 338
2 Madhur Coats Ltd. vs. Madhan Kumar & Ors.,
2000 (85) FLR 933 Madras
3 Management of T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. vs. P.L.
Ramanathan & Anr., 2005 (107) FLR 714
We, therefore, set aside the final order dated 25.2.2005
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal
No.1565 of 2004 and allow the appeal filed by the
Management. The orders passed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court and the Labour Court are also set
aside. No costs.