JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents,
2. The prayer made by the writ petitioner in the instant case is for quashing the award dated 15.4.1997 passed in Reference Case No. 14/94/16/94, whereby and whereunder he held that the termination of the petitioner from service was legal, valid and justified and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
3. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of in this case are that in the night ensuing between 12th and 13th August, 1980, the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation bearing number BHX 7584 from Jamshedpur to Arrah but near a place between Chauparan and Sher-ghati, a dacoity was committed in which the property belonging to the passengers were looted. The allegation against the petitioner was that inspite of request made by the passengers, the driver and the conductor did not inform the police, but after the miscreants had left, they drove with the vehicle to its destination instead of going to the nearest Police Station.
4. One Lalan Sah, who was said to be traveling in the bus as a passenger, sent a complaint to the Chairman and other officers including the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi vide Annexure-1 wherein he made an allegation that immediately after the dacoits had left the bus with the belongings of the passengers, they requested the driver and the conductor to rush to the nearest Police Station, but instead of doing so they proceeding to drive the vehicle away to the destination, as a result of which the police could not be apprised of he situation immediately after the occurrence.
5. Upon receipt of the aforementioned letter of the said Lalan Sah, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, being charge-sheet dated 26.2.1981 as contained at Annexure-2, whereafter the petitioner filed his cause on 1.5.1981 vide Annexure-3 wherein he specifically stated that it was absolutely incorrect that he had not given information to the Police Station and that if these allegations were correct, then there is no explanation as to how the present criminal case was instituted bearing a regular police case number.
6. Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has relied very heavily upon the report of Lalan Sah, without examining him at all. However, at paragraph 12, the Labour Court has recorded that the workman remained silent in his deposition before the Court regarding the complaint of Lalan Sah. Additionally, at paragraph 13, the Labour Court has clearly held as follows :–
“The workman has been examined as W.W. 1. No document has been produced on behalf of the workman. This witness in his examination-in-chief before this Court has said that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the dacoiti took place in bus on a wooden bridge in between Sherghati and Chauparan. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, he said that he reported the Police Station about the occurrence and has further said that Enquirying Officer has submitted his report that this workman has reported the Police about the occurrence at 14.30 p.m. The report of the Enquirying Officer and the statement of the workman in the first time of paragraph 2 of his deposition are contradictory. In paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief, he come with another case that after occurrence the dacoits fled away in Matadoor and after five minutes of that police came there and enquired from the workman and then proceeded to chase the dacoits. This fact is not ever stated by the workman and it also contradicts the statement regarding the report to the police made in paragraph 2 of his examination, and not only this In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination he has again come before the Court with an another case and said that after the occurrence of dacoiti, he went to the Police Station with the victim passengers with the bus at 3.30 a.m. but the Officer-in-Charge was not there. At about 4 a.m. Officer-in-Charge came and directed the workman to leave the passengers to its destination and then came back. He has said that his bus became empty at Dehri and then at 2 p.m. he came to the Police Station and lodged the FIR considering the entire evidence of the workman stated above, I failed to understand that when after five minutes of the escaping away of the dacoits, police came and enquired from the driver why not FIR was lodged at that time. Not only this according to the second case of the workman when at 1.30 a.m. he and victim passengers went to the Police Station with Bus and Officer-in-Charge came at 4 a.m., then what prevented the workman for lodging FIR or what prevented the police in recording of the FIR Thereafter the workman has said that when he returned hack again at 2 p.m., then FIR was lodged. This workman has not given cogent ground that why the FIR was not lodged in time. The above contradictory statement of workman regarding the lodging of the FIR is not only contradictory amongst the statements alleged regarding the information to the police about the occurrence. All the above statements given by the workman shows that he has not come before the Court with clean hands, rather he has made the statements before the Court which suits to him to the circumstances according to his mental thinking.”
7. From a perusal of the aforementioned paragraph, it is apparent that the Labour Court after examining the case in its entirety, came to a conclusion that the petitioner’s conduct during the incident was such that he could not give explanation as to why a report was not made immediately after the incident by the petitioner. In the said paragraph, the Labour Court has found contradictory statements being given by the petitioner at different stages.
8. The petitioner is the driver of a public transport vehicle in which people travel long distances. The driver and the conductor of a passenger carrying public transport vehicles are supposed to show complete devotion, sincerity and attention to the passengers. The passengers, while they are traveling depend completely and totally on them. If dacoity had been committed on the bus, it was the bounded duty of the driver to have immediately rushed to the nearest Police Station, but instead of doing so, he proceeded nonetheless to the pre-scheduled destination and ignored the requests of the passengers to go to the nearest Police Station.
9. In that view of the matter, the finding of willful laches and deliberate misconduct arrived at by the Labour Court at paragraph 14 does not require to be interfered with by this Court. Consequently, this Court holds that there is no merit in
this writ application. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall however be no order as
to cost.