JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the award of the Labour Court Patiala whereby the order terminating services of the petitioner on the ground of misconduct has been upheld and the reference made to it under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short the Act) decided against him.
2. Petitioner-workman was employed as a Conductor with Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. It is alleged that on l7.4.1979 he was on duty with bus No .2196 which was going from Ambala Cantt to Patiala. On the way, this bus was checked by the Central Flying Squad and it was found that certain passengers were travelling without tickets from Rajpura to Patiala and the workman had charged bus fare from them. The Flying Squad made a report against him and he was placed under suspension on 19.4.1979 and charge-sheeted on 27.4.1979. A departmental enquiry was held against him in which the charge levelled against the workman was proved and after giving him a show cause notice and personal hearing he was dismissed by raising an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court respondent. After recording evidence of the parties the Labour. Court found that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper and that full opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead his evidence in defence. The Inspectors who checked the bus appeared as witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and deposed against the petitioners. Thirteen passengers had been found travelling without tickets and the workman had charged fare amounting Rs. 17.55 from them but had not issued the tickets. The enquiry Officer appeared before the Labour Court and proved the enquiry proceedings. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer find support from the evidence led before him and it appears that the workman did not seriously contest the validity of the enquiry before the Labour Court was that the amount embezzled was just a small amount of Rs .17.55 and therefore, the workman should be reinstated by invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. The Labour Court did not accept this contention and keeping in view the seriousness of the charge proved against the petitioner, the order of termination was upheld.
3. I have heard Ms. Sabina Advocate in support of the petition and Mr. Somesh Ojha Advocate on behalf of the employer. The Labour Court has properly appreciated the evidence led before it and there is no reason for me to take a view different from the one taken by it. When the domestic enquiry has been properly held and the charge of embezzlement has been proved against the workman there is no reason to award him lesser punishment merely because the amount embezzled was small. Embezzlement, even, if, it be of a small amount, is a serious offence and punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate of the proved charge and the amount embezzled whether small or large does not affect the seriousness of the charge and the criminality of the act of the workman.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court did not consider the judgment of the Criminal Court dated 15. 6. J982 whereby the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Sections 353/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act- It appears that at the time of the checking of the bus In which the petitioner was on duty as a Conductor, the petitioner was at alleged to have infficted injuries with a knife on the person of the Inspector at whose instance an F.I.R. was lodged. The petitioner who was an accused in that case was acquitted by the Trial Magistrate by giving him benefit of doubt. That judgment has no connection with the charge of embezzlement that was levelled against him and proved in the departmental enquiry.
5. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
