2023 LLR 290
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Suraj Govindaraj, J.
WP No. 52820/2014 (L-KSRTC), Dt/– 17-1-2023
Sri Rahmathulla Khan s/o Hussain Khan
vs.
The Divisional Controller & Disciplinary Authority, Management of BMTC
A. DISMISSAL – When justified – Workman, driver-cum-conductor, was detected by checking squad – He was found having not issued tickets to some passengers, profiting himself, causing loss to employer – He was issued charge memo – Workman denied charges – Enquiry Officer held the charges proved against workman – Second Show cause notice was issued – Workman was dismissed from service – Workman raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court dismissed the dispute – Workman challenged award in writ petition – Held, workman contended that punishment imposed is disproportionate with misconduct and enquiry was not proper – Management contended that workman committed misconduct in past for which he was imposed punishment but he did not reform – Held, admission of the workman in respect of his past offences and conviction as well as present misconduct is a sufficient evidence justifying punishment of dismissal is proper and justified. Paras 8 to 10
B. ENQUIRY – When to be proper – Charge was that workman received bus fare but did not issue tickets to passengers – Defence of workman is that punishment imposed is disproportionate with misconduct – Enquiry was not carried out in a proper manner, passengers have not been examined as witnesses and cross-examined – Principle of natural justice has been violated – Held, it is not required for passengers to be examined by the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court – What is to be seen here is the whether the non issuance of tickets has been established in the enquiry proceedings by the presenting officer – Workman had himself admitted clearly and categorically the factum of non-issuance of tickets to 10 passengers for reason that passengers had stated that they have passes – If tickets are not issued then that would amount to a misconduct – Hence, enquiry is proper. Paras 8 to 10
For Petitioner: Mr. V.B. Siddaramaiah, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. B.S. Srinivas, Advocate for Mr. B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
ORDER
Suraj Govindaraj, J. –1. The petitioner-workman is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to set aside the award dated: 09.07.2014, passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No. 17/2013, vide Annexure-G and consequently allow the dispute raised by the petitioner as prayed.
(b) Pass any other order or orders, or issue any other writ or writs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner-workman was employed as driver-cum-conductor with the respondent – the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) from 27.10.2014. On 6.6.2010 when the workman was discharging his duties in route between Yelahanka to Devanahalli, wherein 27 general passengers and 45 pass passengers were traveling. The checking squad having conducted the check, found that the workman had not issued 3 tickets to 3 passengers of Rs. 3/- denomination by collecting fare and also not issued ticket to group of 9 passengers of Rs. 3 denomination, totally amounting to 12 tickets. The charge memo was issued alleging that the workman had profited on such non-issuance and losses cost against the corporation.
3. The workman denied the charges, the Disciplinary Authority had initiated a enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges leveled against workman to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd Show cause notice. The reply thereto not being satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from the service vide order dated 12.11.2012. The workman raised a dispute in ID No. 17/2013 before the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru. The Labour Court dismissed the said dispute. It is aggrieved by the same that the workman is before this Court.
4. Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah., learned counsel appearing for the workman would submit that the workman has been discriminated against the punishment which has been imposed on other similarly situated workman is much lesser than that has been imposed on the petitioner. The punishment which has been imposed is disproportionate with the misconduct alleged against the workman. The enquiry was not carried out in a proper manner.
5. Sri. B.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation would however submit that the Labour Court having taken into consideration the past misconduct on the part of the petitioner-workman including his conviction for 10 red marked offences and imposition of minor penalties, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that, it is unlikely for the petitioner-workman to reform and as such dismissed the dispute. He therefore submits this Court ought not to interfere in the matter.
6. Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah., learned counsel appearing for the workman and Sri. B.S. Srinivas., learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation. Perused the papers.
7. The contention of the Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah., learned counsel for workman is that the passengers as regards whom the tickets have not been issued have not been examined either by the enquiry officer or before the Labour court and therefore the workman was deprived of cross-examining them so as to elicit the truth. It is this that he says has resulted in a defective enquiry and on that basis he submits that the principle of natural justice has been violated with the workman not having provided sufficient opportunity to establish his innocence.
8. I am of the considered opinion that, the charge memo having been issued and check having been done by checking squad and necessary penalties having been levied against those passengers it is not required for them to be examined by the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. What is to be seen here is the whether the non issuance of tickets has been established in the enquiry proceedings by the presenting officer. The facts and evidence on record indicate that the workman had himself admitted that he has not issued tickets to 10 passengers for the reason that the leader of the said 10 passengers had stated that they have passes and his house being nearby he will get passes to of the passengers. This being clear and categorical admission of non-issuance of tickets and passes of those 10 passengers having not been produced.
9. A conductor in a Road Transport bus cannot accept the statement made by the one of the passengers that he has a pass which is in his house or somewhere else which will be produced subsequently. If a passenger does not have a pass while traveling in the bus, it is required for him to purchase necessary tickets. If tickets are not issued then that would amount to a misconduct as regards which the Road Transport Corporation would be entitled to take action.
10. One other factor which prevailed upon the Labour Court in confirming the order of dismissal is the admission made by the workman himself, that he had been previously convicted in 10 red marked cases though he had dined 42 other misconducts that there is clear and categorical admission made by him that he had been convicted in 10 red marked cases. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-workman had been serving with respondent-the Road Transport Corporation only for a period of 8 years prior to the evidence being laid before the Labour Court. In the said 8 years the workman having been convicted of 10 red marked offences wherein lenient punishment was awarded and no change having occurred in the conduct of the workman, the Labour Court, I am of the considered opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that it is unlikely for the workman to reform himself and discharge his obligation in a proper and required manner. Thus, on both account there being a clear and categorical admission that tickets have not been issued and there being a clear and categorical admission that the workman had been convicted in 10 red marked offences, I am the considered opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court is proper and justified and that there are no grounds made out for interference. As such the petition stands dismissed .