JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 18th October, 1985 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.1117/1983.
2. The following reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication:-
“Whether the removal from services of Sh. Om Prakash, Conductor is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
3. The allegation against the Respondent/Workman was that he had issued tickets to some bus passengers but the amount collected was more than the fare. An inquiry was held against the Respondent/Workman and the charges were proved against him. A show cause notice was then issued to him and after hearing the Respondent/Workman, his services were terminated. The Petitioner took approval of the proposed action from the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short).
4. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the reference by Delhi Administration is not a reference by Appropriate Govt.?
2. Whether the enquiry against workman was illegal, ultra-vires the powers of officers conducting the enquiry or against the principles of natural justice and capricious and as such void?
3. Whether the demand notice served upon the management is not legal?
4. As in the reference.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court decided Issue No.1 against the Petitioner, but the correctness of the conclusion of the learned Labour Court is not now agitated in the present writ petition.
6. As regards Issue No.2, the learned Labour Court held that the inquiry against the Respondent/Workman was valid and did not suffer any defect. The inquiry was also held to have been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
7. As regards the third issue, it was held that the demand notice issued by the Respondent/Workman was legal and valid. This issue was decided against the Petitioner but no grievance has now been made in this regard.
8. What has really been held against the Petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the Respondent/Workman was harsh. The learned Labour Court held that the Respondent/Workman should be given reinstatement but without back wages.
9. By an order dated 25th September, 1986 the operation of the Award of the learned Labour Court was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court. This order was confirmed on 19th August, 1987 but while doing so, it was held that the Petitioner is liable to pay full back wages to the Respondent/Workman along with future salary in terms of Section 17-B of the Act. In other words, only the reinstatement of the Respondent/ Workman was stayed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has informed me that the Respondent/Workman has since crossed the age of superannuation in June, 1990 and, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise.
10. The only question that requires to be adjudicated in the circumstances of the present case is whether the punishment imposed upon the Respondent/Workman was dis-proportionate to the misconduct proved against him.
11. In a recent decision, Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, , the Supreme Court endorsed the view that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge, which has been proved, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority should not be interfered with.
12. In the present case, the report of the Enquiry Officer mentioned the following:-
“Even his service record gives a very gloomy picture of his work and conduct as he has 26 adverse entries (sic entries) in his service record and twice he was awarded a penalty of stoppage of increment but this could not awaken a sense of responsibility to him.”
13. It appears to me that on these facts, the learned Labour Court grossly erred in interfering with the award of punishment on the alleged ground that the past record of the Respondent/ Workman should not have been considered. There is no reason for coming to this conclusion. There was a reference to the past record of the Respondent/Workman in the charge sheet issued to him and in the Enquiry Report. There is no dispute that the Enquiry Report was furnished to the Respondent/Workman. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Respondent/Workman was taken by surprise when his past record was taken into consideration for awarding the punishment of dismissal.
14. Consequently, the Award of the learned Labour Court is set aside and the punishment of termination from service awarded to the Respondent/Workman is upheld. However, the amounts already paid to the Respondent/Workman under the orders of this Court passed on 19th August, 1987 shall not be recovered.
15. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.