ORDER
1. The petitioner-Corporation is challenging the impugned award at Annexure-E dated 12-12-1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the first respondent with 50% backwages with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
2. The impugned award is challenged on the ground that the Labour Court should not have held that the dismissal of the first respondent from service was not justified having regard to the proved misconduct. The further attack is, awarding of 50% backwages was not warranted as the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the time-barred claim. Smt. Renuka, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was dated 8-1-1996. Under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the dispute should have been raised within six months from the date of order of dismissal. In the instant case, the dispute was raised on 31-10-1996 and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court. Smt. Renuka further submits that failure to issue tickets to 5 passengers and non-issue of tickets to 3 passengers despite collection of fare by the first respondent is a grave misconduct but the Labour Court has lightly viewed the matter and held that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. According to her, the approach of the Labour Court is bad and the exercise of power is unreasonable and arbitrary and hence the impugned award cannot be sustained.
3. Learned Counsel for the first respondent sought to justify the impugned award contending that the Labour Court on the basis of the enquiry conducted, has answered the preliminary issue against the petitioner-management. Thereafter, the management did not chose to adduce evidence in support of the order of dismissal.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the Labour Court should not have entertained the dispute which raised beyond six months from the date of order of dismissal cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Central Offices v Govinda Setty, wherein it is held that entertaining the dispute after the limitation period prescribed is not illegal and the prescription is only directory.
5. The Labour Court recorded a finding that there were 60 passholders and 45 adults and the bus was overcrowded and the first respondent was in the process of issuing the tickets and at that stage the bus came to be checked. At paragraph 10 of the award the Labour Court has found that 14 passengers had remained to be attended; that the first respondent had not collected amount from them and the explanation submitted by him should have been considered by the checking staff. Having regard to the fact that the bus was overcrowded and the first respondent was in the process of issuing the tickets and he had not collected the fare from 14 passengers, the explanation ought to have been considered by the authorities. Non-consideration of the same amounted to miscarriage of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the workman.
6. As regards awarding 50% backwages is concerned, it is to be noticed that the very allegation against the first respondent as per paragraph 3 of the award was that he had not issued 1 ticket of Rs. 1.25, 5 tickets of 0-75 paise and 3 tickets of 0-75 paise despite collecting the fare. Thus, the total amount of misappropriation is Rs. 7-25. However, in paragraph 6 while considering Issue No. 2, it is stated that the first respondent had pilfered a total sum of Rs. 12-75 without issuing tickets. It was also found that the total amount involved was hardly Rs. 12-75 and having regard to the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v B.M. Patil, the Labour Court found that the penalty of dismissal was rather severe and disproportionate to the gravity of charges. However, in paragraph 7 of the award the Labour Court has observed that the claimant being a responsible employee of the Corporation, it was his duty to discharge service sincerely and satisfactorily and to see that no revenue loss is caused to the Corporation. Thus, considering all aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly awarded only 50% backwages. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that award of 50% backwages was not warranted, cannot be accepted.
7. The impugned award is perfectly right and does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition.
8. Writ petition stands rejected.