ORDER
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has preferred this petition whereby an award dated March 10, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore has been called into question. The respondent-employee was at the relevant time employed as a Junior Assistant with the corporation’s office in Mangalore. It is alleged that one of his duties was to maintain the register in respect of tyres that were taken out from the stores and that it came to the notice of the corporation that there was serious dereliction of duty on his part in so far as he had failed to maintain the inventory or accounts of the tyres and that as many as 139 pages were found to have been blank. There are two other heads of charges namely that on October 19, 1995 he is alleged to have left the office unauthorisedly, gone to the bus-stand and got into a violent altercation with certain other employees of the corporation who were supposed to have been on strike. It is alleged that the incident was an ugly one which necessitated police intervention and that the employee had misconducted himself in a public place. The employee denied the charges and it is relevant for me to mention that he contended that he was the head of a union, that there was a lot of hostility between his union and the bigger unions and that the corporation took advantage of this situation and at the instance of the rivals that he was sought to be framed and victimised. While there is no dispute about the fact that the relevant entries were not made in the register, the defence pleaded was that this was not a job function of the employee concerned and that the corporation has not produced any office orders indicating that this was part of his duty. As regards the bus-stand incident, the defence pleaded was that the petitioner had in fact requested for leave, that he had gone to the bus- stand to board a bus and that because of inter-union rivalry he was assaulted by persons ill-disposed towards him and that he had not behaved in any unruly fashion. The interesting feature of this case is that the incident is alleged to have taken place on October 19, 1995 , and the corporation issued the memorandum of charges with a very high degree of speed i, e. on October 21, 1995. The areas of dispute being minimal, the enquiry concluded and ultimately the employee was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed and the case ultimately went to the Labour Court. Again, a memo was filed in Court accepting the fairness of the enquiry and therefore no further evidence was led. The original record of the enquiry was reviewed by the Labour Court in the light of the submissions canvassed and the Court recorded the finding that the order of dismissal was unjustified, that even assuming some improper acts had been established that the misconduct would call for a punishment of lesser gravity and therefore directed reinstatement withholding one increment. The employee has not challenged the order but the corporation has come upto this Court by way of the present petition.
2. At the hearing, it was contended that the job entrusted to the employee was a responsible one. In other words, it consisted of accounting of valuable property of the corporation such as tyres, that the misconduct is extremely gross because it is emphatically demonstrated from the 139 blank pages in the register that the employee was persistently remiss in his duties and having regard to the nature of the misconduct coupled with the other head of charge which was held proved that the order for
reinstatement with payment of back wages was unjustified. As regards the second incident that had taken place at the bus- stand, the corporation’s learned advocate submitted that this has been proved through the evidence of two witnesses and what is important is that the employee has neither given evidence himself nor examined any witnesses in support of his plea that he had applied for leave and that he had gone there for legitimate purposes. I need to mention here that at the hearing the learned counsel who represents the employees produced a copy of the application for leave on October 19, 1995 but I am not attaching any significance to this document for only one reason namely that as a matter of principle, one ought not to permit additions to the record particularly in a situation where at none of the earlier stages of the proceeding has this document been either referred to or produced. The additional argument canvassed by the corporation’s learned advocate is that whether a responsible employee of the corporation indulges in unruly behaviour at a public place which is so serious as to warrant police intervention that the employee virtually forfeits the right to be continued as a staff member and that the gravity of this act alone is sufficient to justify the order of dismissal.
3. The learned advocate who represents the employee submits that before the responsibility for the blank pages in the registers can be fastened on the employee, it is condition precedent that there must be documentary proof of the fact that this particular duty was assigned to him. I am unable to accept this defence because there is enough material on record indicating what was the status of the employee and the nature of duties assigned to him in the office and consequently, it would be too far fetched and improper to accept that elementary issue such as what were the day to day functions of the employee should be set out in office orders and proved through strict oral evidence. The real question is as to how serious is the act of misconduct even assuming that the employee was remiss and had not done his day to day duty of maintaining the registers. Since it is spread over as many as 139 pages, it is not an isolated instance and it is misconduct of some degree of seriousness.
4. As far as the bus-stand incident is concerned, there is evidence to indicate that the employee had gone there. He has not justified his absence from the office on that date but beyond this, it is more than clear that the incident was not of any seriousness because in that case the police who were present there would certainly have registered an offence or taken action in respect of this offence. Under these circumstances. I would prefer to hold that while it is an incident of misbehaviour on the part of the employee that again, is not misbehaviour of any high degree or gravity.
5. The Labour Court has already recorded the conclusion that even assuming some; misconduct has been established the order of dismissal was unjustified. There is a well settled principle that applies to the award of all forms of punishments, be it disciplinary proceedings or criminal case, which postulates that the punishment must bear a strict nexus to the gravity of the offence or the misconduct mat is established. In the present instance, I do concede that the employee deserves some level of punishment. If the dismissal order goes, he will nave to be reinstated in service and I have carefully applied my mind to the question as to what would be adequate punishment for the misconduct that has been alleged. Though a strong plea was advanced by the learned counsel who represents the employee that the misconduct is not of any seriousness and he further submitted that it is because of the fact that the employee was a union leader, that an entirely different colour has been given to the incident and that every effort has been made to virtually victimise him, I find it difficult to uphold this argument in its entirety. The employee would be entitled by virtue of reinstatement to consequential benefit of continuity of service. As the Labour Court has held that one increment should be withheld, I do not propose to interfere with that order. On the question of back wages however to my mind it is necessary for the Courts to adopt a very careful and very rational approach because indiscriminately awarding back wages virtually amounts to providing a bonanza for misconduct. Denial of pack wages is equally oppressive particularly if it is a case of the present type where it is due to the fault of the corporation that an unduly harsh order was passed. To my mind, had
a careful judicial appraisal been done on the facts of the case a lesser punishment would have been awarded, the employee would not have been out of his job and the corporation would not have been required to pay him back wages. While the employee is responsible for the misconduct which culminated in a disciplinary proceeding, I hold the corporation equally liable for what has happened in so far as the order of dismissal which was thoroughly unjustified was recklessly passed. To that extent, the corporation will have to atone for the error committed by paying to the employee 50% of the back wages and the other 50% would be denied because the employee was also responsible for what happened having regard to the misconduct that is established.
6. The petition partially succeeds. While the order of the Labour Court is maintained as far as reinstatement and continuity in service as well as the withholding of one increment is concerned, it is modified to the extent that only 50% of the back wages shall be paid.
7. Now that the proceeding has concluded, it is in the corporation’s own interest to ensure that this order is implemented expeditiously. It is made clear to the corporation that if there is any delay in implementation of the order the corporation will be liable for payment of the salary and allowances of the employee on and from the date on which this order has been pronounced and that if there is abnormal delay or unjustified delay in payment of the back wages it shall be open to the aggrieved employee to reapply to this Court for consequential reliefs. It is necessary to make this last order because this Court has found that in many cases there has been unjustified delay. The petition partially succeeds and stands disposed of No order as to csts.
8. The learned advocate who represents the corporation states that it will take a little time to obtain the copy of the order, communicate it to the authorities so that they can take a decision with regard to the future course of action and that the Court should prescribe a reasonable time for implementation. Haying regard to the factors involved, to my mind thirty days would be reasonable time for implementation.