IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987
Date of Decision:04.09.2008
Jarnail Singh
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Jarnail Singh- workman for
quashing the impugned award dated 23.9.1987 Annexure P.1 passed by the
Labour Court.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 24.2.1983,
when the petitioner was Conductor on Bus No.6468, he was found to have
charged fare @ Rs.2.15 per head from eight passengers travelling in a group
from Kotkapura to Baghapurana, though the tickets were not issued to them.
When unpunched tickets of the value of the amount embezzled were
demanded from him by the checking party at Samalsar, he did not part with
such tickets. He prevented the checking staff to give their observations on
the way bill. On 29.1.1983, when he was conductor on bus No.6772, his
bus was checked at Moga by Inspector Chand Ram. The petitioner was
found on duty without uniform and the first aid box. On 8.3.1983, he was
conductor on bus No.6732 when the same was checked at Shamatkhera by
Inspector Joginder Singh, he was found to have issued to four passengers
tickets short by 60 paise and two others by 80 paise. When he was charge-
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -2-
sheeted he did not plead guilty thereto. After inquiry, he was found guilty.
He was served with a show cause notice to which he filed reply. After
considering the same, his services were terminated. The dispute between
the petitioner and the respondents was referred to the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bathinda.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court
vide impugned award dated 23.9.1987 held that the workman is not entitled
to any relief. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this petition
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been
admitted that the petitioner was working as conductor with them when his
services were terminated on 30.9.1983. It has been averred that the Labour
Court, Bathinda has rightly held that inquiry was fair and proper. This
petition may be dismissed with costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing
the findings returned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award.
On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that even if it be assumed
that the inquiry was fair and proper, nonetheless, the Labour Court was
bound to re-appreciate the evidence produced in inquiry and then come to
its independent findings as to whether any misconduct was proved or not. It
has been wrongly held that it is not within the scope of jurisdiction of the
Labour Court to probe into the truth of the charges as long as the inquiry is
fair and proper. Once the Labour Court was satisfied that the misconduct
was proved, then it was to decide the question of quantum of punishment. If
a passenger travels without ticket, he is bound to pay ten times fare. Any
passenger who travels without ticket would naturally put the blame on the
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -3-
conductor. It is in these circumstances that, it becomes necessary that the
statements of the passengers should have been recorded. The checking staff
must find as to whether the blame falls on the passenger or the conductor.
The petitioner was not provided any help of co-worker, though the
management was represented by a Presenting Officer. It was incumbent
upon the Inquiry Officer to tell the petitioner that he is entitled to engage
co-employee for help in the inquiry which has not been done. The question
which arise for determination by this Court is as to whether the termination
of services of the petitioner is illegal or that the Labour Court has wrongly
held that the inquiry was fair and proper and has failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab refuted these submissions by contending that as is borne out from
the award itself, the petitioner had admitted that the inquiry was held and he
had participated therein and furthermore the inquiry was found fair and
proper. The law nowhere lays down that the statements of the passengers
ought to have been recorded either by the Inquiry Officer or the Labour
Court and that being so, no fault can be found with the findings returned by
the Labour Court. To buttress these stances, he has sought to place
abundant reliance upon the observations made in re: Kirpal Singh v.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh and
another, 1993 (3) Recent Services Judgments 338, Haryana State
Electricity Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Faridabad and another, 1999 (4) Recent Services Judgments 777,
State of Punjab and others v. Nirmal Singh, 1987 Punjab Acts and
Precedents 24 (Punjab and Haryana), State of Haryana and another v.
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -4-
Rattan Singh, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492, Divisional Controller,
N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, 2006 (5) Service Law Reporter 721,
Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghyanshyam Sharma, 2002 (3) Recent
Services Judgments 77, Pritam Singh v. Labour Court, Bathinda and
others, 1999 (3) Recent Services Judgments 290.
On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner are unsustainable for the reasons to be
recorded hereinafter.
In the impugned award, it has been observed by the Presiding
Officer of the Labour Court that “at any rate, the checking of the bus by
flying squad is admitted by the workman in reply to the chargesheet and the
workman himself suggested to Prithvi Raj and Sarwan Singh in the cross-
examination that eight passengers were apprehended by the checking staff
without tickets.” This observation leave no scope for doubt that the
petitioner himself had admitted that eight passengers were apprehended by
the checking staff without tickets. Thus, there was no need to examine such
passengers. It has been further observed that “in the cross-examination
directed at Inspector Sarwan Singh of the flying squad, it was suggested by
the workman that the passengers who were found travelling without tickets
had been charged by the conductor of the bus, which had broken down. The
suggestion was refuted by the Inspector who said “No this is incorrect, we
confronted the conductor (the workman) with those passengers to his
satisfaction.” In view of these observations, the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance. The matter does not rest
here. In re: Rattan Singh (supra), a bus conductor of a State Transport
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -5-
undertaking was charge-sheeted for not collecting fares from certain
passengers. The statements of passengers were not recorded. The Apex
Court ruled as under:-
“that it is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and
sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act
may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for
a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay
evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is
true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals
must be careful in evaluting such material and should not
glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the
Indian Evidence Act. The essence of a judicial approach is
objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations
and observance of rules of natural justice. Sufficiency of
evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is
beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a
finding is certainly available for the court to look into because
it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. It cannot
hold that merely because statements of passengers were not
recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-
evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor’s
testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative
tribunal.”
It can be reasonably culled out from these observations that the
impugned award cannot be held unsustainable merely because the
statements of the passengers were not recorded. Further in re: Nirmal
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -6-
Singh (supra), it has been held that there is no need to produce passengers.
The statement of Inspector who checked the passenger and cash of the
conductor relevant to be relied upon. In re: Haryana State Electricity
Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Faridabad and another (supra), it has been observed that “the findings of
fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on
the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.
The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of
fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same could not be agitated before High
Court in writ jurisdiction.” Thus in view of these observations, it does not
lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the relevant and material
evidence produced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate
to sustain the impugned finding. In re: Kirpal Singh (supra), it has been
observed as under:-
“It is one thing to say that the assistance of a co-workman was
denied and altogether different thing to say that the co-
workman be called and the enquiry may be ensued only
thereafter. Further, this point was not raised before the Labour
Court. While dealing with issue No.1 which is with regard to
enquiry being proper or vitiated for some reason, it has been
held that the workman in fact in his statement did not make any
grievance with regard to the conduct of enquiry nor did he say
anything which could possibly suggest that he was not allowed
fair and reasonable opportunity either to cross examine the
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -7-witnesses who appeared against him or in leading defence to
prove his own case. If this point was taken in the pleadings
before the Labour Court and evidence was led, it was possible
for the management to rebut the same and prove that in fact
assistance of a co-workman was never denied to the petitioner
and that the presence of the co-workman was not to be secured
by it. In view of the fact that this matter was not agitated
before the Labour Court and in fact no question whatsoever
was raised against the conduct of the enquiry, it shall not be
just and equitable at this stage to go into this point and set aside
the order of dismissal of petitioner from service.
The next point raised by the learned counsel based on Full
Bench Judgment of this Court in “The State of Haryana and
others versus Ram Chander”, A.I.R. 1976 Punjab & Haryana
381 is that the passengers who had boarded the bus and were
not issued the tickets as alleged against the petitioner were
admittedly not examined before the Enquiry Officer and the
evidence of the Inspectors alone was not enough to prove the
charges levelled against him. The evidence of Inspectors is
said to be hear-say evidence and, therefore, inadmissible and
unreliable. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel
on the basis of law laid down in “State of Haryana and another
versus Rattan Singh”, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492 and
Sarup Singh, Ex-Conductor Versus The State of Punjab and
others”, 1989 (7) Services Law Reporter 328 has to be
repelled.”
Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 -8-
Harking back to the facts of the present case, in the background
of the afore-quoted law, if the evidence of the Inspector is assumed for a
little while to be hearsay, notwithstanding it cannot be discarded as it has
reasonable nexus and credibility. As is borne out from the impugned award,
it was not pointed out before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not
provided the assistance of a co-worker. It was also not argued before the
Labour Court that a request was made by the petitioner for getting the help
of a co-worker and the same was either declined or remained undecided.
Rather as has been mentioned in the impugned award, the workman
admitted that the inquiry was held and he had participated therein. A glance
through the observations made in the impugned award would reveal that a
fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-
examine the witnesses who appeared against him. The impugned award
tends to show that the petitioner himself had admitted certain material facts.
In the ultimate analysis, it is found that the termination of
services of the petitioner does not smack of any illegality or infirmity. The
learned Labour Court has acted in a right perspective by not exercising the
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A. In view of the preceding
discussion, I do not consider it proper to interfere in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly,
this petition is dismissed.
September 04, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/ No