JUDGMENT
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to question the order of the Labour Court Coimbatore in I.D. No. 49 of 1995, dated December 7, 1995.
2. The petitioner was a conductor in the services of the second respondent with effect from March 5, 1996. On April 23, 1988 when he was in the route bus proceeding from Ooty to Erode, he issued a luggage ticket to a passenger totalling a sum of Rs. 62.50 including his ticket of Rs. 15.50. The total amount was mentioned in words also. But he had mistakenly wrote in the collection slip the amount of Rs. 54.75 and it was left unnoticed by oversight. The same was remitted along with the collection slip on the same night. The remittance along with the collection slip was sent to the head office and only while it was checked by Accounts Section, the
discrepancy was noted.
3. The petitioner was issued with a charge-memo, dated May 1, 1988, and he was directed to give his explanation. He had approached his union who assured that they will take up the issue with the management. The petitioner submitted his explanation and an enquiry was conducted. Only one witness was examined. According to the petitioner, the basic reports and other documents were not provided hence he could not defend himself properly. Subsequently, he was terminated from service by dismissal order, dated March 28, 1989. The petitioner further states that as the dispute relating to the bonus was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, he could not immediately approach the Tribunal to set aside the ex parte order. Therefore, there was a delay of four years in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. By order, dated December 9, 1993, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute before the Government vide his letter dated November 28, 1994. The Conciliation Officer found it not possible to bring about any mediation. Therefore a claim was filed on March 6, 1995 and the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 49 of 1995.
4. The Labour Court framed two issues namely as to whether there was delay in raising dispute and whether he was eligible for the relief claimed in the claim statement.
5. On both issues the Labour Court found against the petitioner and hence, the above writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when he had remitted the amount along with the collection slip, it has been accepted without any demur. The mistake was only due to oversight and the present action having been taken only on the basis of the said complaint. There was no proof of any misappropriation. He would further submit that even taking for granted that there was any discrepancy in the amount actually remitted by him, the difference was less than Rs. 8. Therefore, it did not warrant the drastic punishment of dismissal from service. In this context, learned counsel refers to the service regulations relating to Pattukottai Alagiri Corporation and the Standing Orders of the employees of Pallavan Transport Corporation. With reference to bye-laws relating to Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation while dealing with the deficit cash balance it is enlisted as a misconduct only when the deficit of cash balance exceeds Rs. 20. Likewise in the Standing Orders applicable to Pallavan Transport Corporation, it would amount to misconduct only, if the deficit cash balance exceeds Rs. 10. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation is a sister concern being an undertaking of the State Government. Only due to the absence of uniform policy, the petitioner is sought to be inflicted with a grave punishment of dismissal from service.
7. On the question of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and Anr. . In that case, the Supreme Court has held that in a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act Article 137 of the schedule to the Limitation Act was not applicable. Therefore, the ground of delay as mentioned by the Labour Court cannot be sustained.
8. I have also heard learned counsel for the second respondent. He contends that the evidence has been considered in detail. He also refers to the admission of the delinquent himself to the effect that he had made mistaken entries in the chart. The Labour Court has also taken note of several antecedents of the delinquent in this context. Therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be confirmed and there was no reason to interfere with the order of punishment.
9. I have considered the submissions of both sides. One of the reasons on the basis of which the Labour Court had decided against the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached the Labour Court after considerable delay. In this context, as already stated learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd., cited above, holding that the provision of Article 137 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, the petitioner has also explained the reasons or the delay namely, that he has entrusted the matter to the union which was involved in bonus dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal and he could not immediately approach the Tribunal. Thereafter he filed his application to set aside the ex parte order in the year 1993 itself. Subsequently he raised the dispute and on the failure report the petitioner had filed the claim petition in the year 1995. Therefore, the alleged. delay on the part of the petitioner deserves to be ignored. It is also true that the Labour Court appears to have been carried away by the factor of delay as one of the reasons for inflicting the major penalty.
10. As regards the merits of the findings against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Standing Orders of two other sister concerns namely, Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation and Pallavan Transport Corporation. Those Corporations are also undertakings of the State Government and in terms of the Standing Orders it is held that deficit cash balance would amount to misconduct only if it exceeds Rs. 20 in the case of Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation and Rs. 10 in the case of Pallavan Transport Corporation. It appears that such shortfall frequently happens due to circumstances beyond the control of the conductors and it is only in those circumstances deficit of Rs. 10 or Rs. 20 as stated earlier is not considered to be a misconduct. The said contention of the petitioner requires to be taken note of atleast in the context of fixing the quantum of punishment under Section 11-A. It is true that several antecedents have been cited against the petitioner of the same nature of delinquency. However, considering that different yard sticks are adopted by different corporations I feel that in the interest of justice, the respondent/Management may be directed to reinstate the petitioner however without back-wages. The reinstatement shall take effect from the date of this order and it is made clear that the respondent management is not liable to pay back-wages prior to the said date. However, considering the eligibility for pension, the petitioner will be entitled to continuity of service.
11. Subject to the above observation the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.