M 4
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4352 OF 1982
Date of decision: 24-7-1996
For Approval and Signature
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India,1950 or any
order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the
Civil Judge?
Coram: S.K. KESHOTE,J
(24-7-1996)
Miss. Nandini Joshi for the petitioner.
None present for the respondent.
ORAL JUDGMENT
:
This writ petition by the Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation is directed against the award of the
Labour Court, Ahmedabad, made in Reference (LCA) No.41 of
1978 on 31st March, 1982 under which the respondent workmanwas ordered to be reinstated in service on the original post
with continuity of service, but without backwages. The
facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ
petition, briefly stated, are as follows:
The respondent workman was working as driver under
the Corporation. On 27-2-1976 he was on duty on Disa
Panthwada route. He allowed three unauthorised persons to
sit in the cabin of the driver. The conductor of the bus
went to those three persons for issuing tickets to them, but
the respondent workman (driver) did not allow the conductor
to give tickets to those persons. Those persons had beaten
the conductor and abused him, but still the
respondent-driver did not intervene in the matter and stop
those persons from misbehaving with the conductor. Upon
this conduct of the driver and those three unauthorised
persons, the conductor insisted that until those three
persons are given the tickets he will not allow the bus to
start. On this the respondent workman got excited, opened
the bonnet of the bus and broke the flow pipe and removed
the bolts and accelerator and declared that the bus had a
break down. He forced the conductor to go to Panthwada to
inform the Manager about the break down. This unauthorised
act of the driver has resulted in causing great difficulties
and inconvenience to the passengers. The passengers were
forced to proceed on foot. The driver has been charge
sheeted for the misconduct. In the inquiry, the charge was
found proved against him. The disciplinary authority,
taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct,
dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised
industrial dispute and the same has been referred to the
Labour Court for adjudication.
2.The papers of the domestic inquiry conducted against
the workmen were produced before the Labour Court on behalf
of the Corporation. When the matter had come up for hearing
before the Labour Court the respondent workman filed pursis
Exh.9 admitting the legality of the domestic inquiry held
against him and he stated that he did not wish to lead any
oral evidence. On behalf of the Corporation pursis Exh.10
was given stating that as the workman had admitted the
legality and propriety of the inquiry conducted against him
by the Corporation, it did not desire to lead any oral
evidence and the same may be treated as closed. The only
point considered by the Labour Court for its decision was
about punishment given to the workman. Relying on the
decision of this Court in special civil application No.2740
of 1981 decided on 1-12-1981 the Labour Court has reached
the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal was extreme.
The Labour Court has given reasons for taking lenient view
in the matter of punishment that looking to the condition
prevailing in the country and the widespread unemployment
and absence of unemployment insurance schemes the punishment
of dismissal should be given only in rare cases.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow, reported in 1994(1) SC
217, and in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of
India and others, reported in JT 1995 (8) S.C. 65,
contended that the Labour Court has very limited power of
judicial review in the matter of quantum of punishment to be
awarded to a delinquent for proved misconduct. In the
matter of punishment, interference could have been made only
where punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or
the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to
the guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that the misconduct which was there against the
workman was grave and serious. He had allowed three
unauthorised persons to travel in the bus and allowed them
to sit in the driver’s cabin and did not allow the conductor
of the bus to issue tickets to those three persons. Not
only this, when the conductor insisted on issuing tickets to
those three persons he had gone to the extent of damaging
the property of the Corporation and the bus was deliberately
made to break down. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the Corporation provides travelling
facilities to the passengers and because of the conduct of
the respondent-driver the travelling public had to go to
their respective destinations on foot. The driver should
have taken care of the passengers, leaving apart the dispute
in between him and the conductor. But he has not taken care
of the passengers and compelled them to go to their
destinations on foot. This conduct of the workman certainly
lowered down the prestige and reputation of the Corporation
amongst the travelling public and in such matters no lenient
view should have been taken and the minimum punishment
should be dismissal from service.
4.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The decision of the Division Bench of this court has not
been correctly read by the Labour Court. It is nowhere laid
down that in no case penalty of dismissal could be given to
the delinquent workman. Apart from this, the Labour Court
have not interfered with the punishment of dismissal given
to the workman only on the ground that there is wholesome
unemployment in the country and there is no unemployment
insurance scheme. If that position is allowed, then in no
case penalty of dismissal, removal or termination can be
given. The apex court in the aforesaid two cases held that
in the matter of punishment to be given to a delinquent on
proved misconduct the Court and Tribunal has very limited
jurisdiction. But interference could be made in the matter
of penalty to be given where the penalty is considered to be
shocking the judicial conscience of the Court and not
otherwise. In the present case, in the facts of the case
which have come on record, coupled with the fact that the
inquiry was not found defective and the charges framed
against the workman was found proved, can the interference
made by the labour court with the punishment which has been
given to the workman be said to be justified? The reply to
this question is obviously in negative. The Labour Court
has failed to take into consideration the important fact
that the Corporation provided public utility service and it
cannot be compelled to continue an employee who deliberately
caused damage to the bus and deliberately made the bus to
break down, which has resulted in causing inconvenience to
the passengers travelling in the said bus. Because of the
aforesaid deliberate Act of the workman, the passengers
travelling in the said bus were compelled to go to their
destinations on foot. This conduct of an employee of the
Corporation has resulted in damaging the reputation of the
Corporation. Deliberate causing of damage to the bus as
well as allowing three unauthorised persons to travel in the
driver’s cabin of the bus are serious misconducts. Above
all, the respondent workman had not allowed the conductor to
issue tickets to those three persons. The respondent
workman interfered with the discharge of duties by the
conductor and he forced him to put the Corporation to loss
of money which could have been collected from those three
persons. Such interference of the driver in the discharge
of duties by the conductor is a very serious misconduct and
the minimum punishment for such persons should have been
dismissal from service. The Labour Court has interfered
with the punishment of dismissal without giving any cogent
and justifiable reasons. It is not a case where the matter
should have been taken lightly. The considerations weighed
with the Labour Court are not germane to the facts of the
case. The punishment which has been given to the delinquent
in a given case has to be considered with reference to the
gravity of the misconduct alleged and proved and not with
reference to the employment of that person. If the
Corporation is compelled to continue such a driver in its
service it will not only encourage indiscipline among other
persons, to the extent of putting the passengers travelling
in the Corporation’s bus to inconvenience, but also tarnish
the reputation of the Corporation. Taking into
consideration the totality of the facts of the case and the
law laid down by the apex court, it is a case where
interference with the award made by the Labour Court is
called for.
5.In the result this special civil application is
allowed and the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in
Reference (LCA) No.41 of 1978 made on 31st March,1982 is
quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid
terms. No order as to costs.
………
csm