JUDGMENT
Jain J.
1. These special appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated March 10, 1993 by which the appellants’ writ petitions challenging the orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts reducing the penalties awarded to the workmen-respondents by the employer-appellant have been dismissed.
2. Relevant facts are shown in tabular column under as follows
No. & Year of
Gist of Charge/s against respondent
Cist of Punishment imposed by Management
Date of judgment of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court
Punishment’ reduced by the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Grounds for reduction of punishment
S. No.
Write Petition
Special Appeal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
643/92 (Operator)
197/93
Repealed absence from duty for total 136 1/2 days without
prior information & sanction of leave.
Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect.
01,05.91
Withholding of one grade increement without cumulative
Excessive
2.
3746/93 (Conductor)
198/93
Carrying 1&5 passengers without ticket on two
separate occasions
Withholding of four annual grade increments with
cumulative effect & forfeiture of remaining wages of suspension
period (Earlier punished on four occasions for similar misconduct
25.04.92
Withholding of two annual grade incremens for a period of
two years only.
Excessive
3.
3869/92 (Conductor)
199/93
Carried 8 passengers without ticket & caused
obstruction in making remarks in the way-bill by the checkcing party and
ran away with the documents
Withholding of two grade increments with cumulative
effect & forfeiture of pay of suspension period
18.01.92
Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect
only
Excessive
4.
4856/92
200/93
Carried 2,14 & 26 passengers without ticket on three
different dates.
Withholding of 2,3 & 5 annual grade increments with
cumulative effect, forfeiture of wages of suspension period and fine of
Rs,500/-
22.01.92
Withholding 1+1+1 (total three) annual grade increments
without cumulative effect.
Excessive
5.
1658/92(Driver)
201/93
Caused accident on20.05.85.
Withholding of two annual grade increments with
cumulative effect & forfeiture of wages of suspension Deriod.
14.08.91
Withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative
effect.
Excessive
6.
3427/92 (Conductor)
202/93
Caused loss of one book containing 100 way-bills.
Withholding of 5 annual grade increments with cumulative
effect and forfeiture of wages of suspension period. (On four previous
occasions he was severly punished).
28.10.91
Stoppage of five annual grade increments up to the date
of publication of award & forfeiture of half of wages of the
suspension Deriod.
Excessive
7.
3423/92 (Driver)
203/93
Came on duty in drunken state and collided his bus with
another bus of the Corporation caused huge damage to both buses.
Withholding of two annual grade increments with
cumulative effect and forfeiture of wages of suspension period.
14.01.91
Withholding of two annual grade increments without
cumulative effect.
Excessive
8.
3435/92 (Accountant)
204/93
Deposited Rs.10,000/-&RS100/-less in the bank.
Withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative
effect.
26.10.91
Recorded warning to remain careful in future
Excessive
9.
3424/92 (Conductor)
205/93
Taking 2 & 5 passengers without ticket on 18-11-74
& 22- 1174 respectively
Withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect
in each case and forfeiture of pay of the period ot suspension
25.04.92
Withholding of one grade increment for one year without
cumulativ effect only.
Excessive
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the legality, validity and fairness of the domestic inquiries held in these cases either were not challenged or the same were held valid, legal and fair. He further contended that Section 11A was inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called the ‘Act’) by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (Central Act of 45 of 1971) with effect from December 15, 1971, its provisions are applicable in the cases of discharge and dismissal only and not in other cases of penalties. He further contended that in other kinds of cases i.e. cases in which penalties other than discharge or dismissal are imposed, the provisions of the Act as they existed prior to December 15, 1971 are applicable and in such cases penalty can be reduced on one or more of the following grounds:
(i) want of good faith,
(ii) victimisation,
(iii) unfair labour practice,
(iv) violation of principles of natural justice, and
(v) finding of guilt is perverse.
He relied upon Indian Iron Steel Co. v. Their Workmen, (1958- I-LLJ-260) (SC), Punjab National Bank v. A.L.P. N.B.E. Federation (1959-II-LLJ-666) (SC), Management of Ritz Theater v. Its Workmen, (1962-II-LLJ-498) (SC).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents duly supported common order under challenge. They contended that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of penalty as is provided under Item No. 1 of Schedule II of the Act even if the legality, validity and fairness of the domestic inquiry is not challenged or is held to be legal, valid or fair.
5. Admittedly, penalty of discharge or dismissal has not been imposed upon any employee-respondent by the employer-appellant. As such the provisions of Section 11A of the Act are not applicable in any of these cases. The law
as it stood prior to the insertion of Section 11A in the Act would be applicable. It has been observed in Indian Iron Steel Co v. Their Workmen (supra) at pages 269-270:
“Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Industrial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials, the finding is completely baseless or perverse.”
6. It has been observed in Punjab National Bank v. ALPNBE Federation, (supra) (p.679):
“In cases where an industrial dispute is raised on the ground of dismissal and it is referred
to the tribunal for adjudication, the tribunal naturally wants to know whether the impugned dismissal was preceded by a proper enquiry or not. Where such a proper enquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of the relevant standing orders and it does not appear that the employer was guilty of victimisation or any unfair labour practice, the tribunal is generally reluctant to interfere with the impugned order. The limits of the
tribunal’s jurisdiction in dealing with such industrial disputes have been recently considered by this Court in the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen (1958- I-LLJ-26Q)(SC) and it has been held that the powers of the Tribunal to interfere with cases of dismissal are not unlimited because the tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. In this judgment this Court has
indicated the classes of cases in which the tribunal would be justified in interfering with
the impugned order of dismissal. It would and should interfere when there is want of good faith, when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of the principle of natural justice, or when, on the materials, the finding of the management is completely baseless or perverse. The same view has been again expressed by this Court in G. Mc Kenzie and Co. Ltd v. Its Workmen- 1959-I-Lab LJ-285.”
7. It has been observed in Workmen of FT &
R Co. v. Management, (1973-I-LLJ-278)(SC)
(p.287):
“The punishment to be meted out was entirely within powers and jurisdiction of the employer and it was no part of the jurisdiction of a tribunal to decide whether the said punishment was justified except in very rare cases where the punishment is so grossly out of proportion so as to suggest victimisation or unfair labour practice. This was the position viz-a-viz the management as on December 15, 1971.”
8. It is clear from the above quoted observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a Labour Court cannot act as a court of appeal to; substitute its own judgment and the area of interference is limited to the cases of want of good faith, victimisation, unfair labour practice, violation of principles of natural justice and perversity of the finding of guilt. Punishment awarded; by an employer can be interfered by a Labour Court on one of the aforesaid grounds and it is required to record cogent reasons justifying interference.
9. On a careful examination of the records of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, it is found that none of the aforesaid grounds exists in any of these cases. No such averment was made in the statements of claims filed by the
employee (respondents) before them. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has also not mentioned any of these grounds in any of its orders interfering with the punishment awarded by the appellant (employer). The learned counsel for the workmen-respondents could not also point out the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds on any material on record in any case. No specific reason has been given by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in any case for reducing the penalty. Non-issuance of journey-tickets by a conductor to the passengers despite charging fare from them is a serious misconduct. It is an offence punishable under Section 8 of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975. As such it is very difficult to sustain the orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and consequently the common order of the learned Single Judge.
10. In Special Appeal No. 204/93, the respondent No. 3 Kaluram Teli has filed cross-objection that the finding of guilt recorded against
him is perverse and he should be exonerated. The inquiring officer held him guilty of supervisory negligence and accordingly the employer imposed the said penalty of withholding of one grade increment. The finding of guilt cannot be
said to be perverse. No case of interference is made out. As such the cross-objection deserves to be rejected.
11. Accordingly, special appeals are allowed.
The common order of the learned Single Judge dated March 10, 1993 is set aside. The orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court reducing the penalties awarded to the workmen-respondents are also set aside. Penalties imposed
upon the workmen-respondents by the employer- appellant are maintained in all the aforesaid cases. The cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 3 Kalu Ram Teli in Special Appeal No. 204/93 is also dismissed. No order as
to costs.