of the conductor. The diseipiinary authority issued a
notice cit. 22/11/2000, Calling upon the eendueterrrto
Show Cause as to why his past record
disclosing irnpositian of m1h0rV»AApun1sh:I1'errt.(Bil '4 V 'V
eeeasiens for similar such rnisee._nd?;;1'et,;' shottlti
Considered while imposing pitm-ishment. eexzdtgefior, . *
having acknowledged the 1}e§,rert1t:e1e_es_fitiid not
submit an authority, on
an independerrt iashsesstiietfii ' aeireumstances
and evidenee' guilty of the
charge dt. 18 / 4 / 2001,
imposedthe eliemissal from service.
_;:':'»". ,T he eoridttleterf aggrieved by the said order of
authority, filed a elaim statement U/s.
:'3':.€'_J'("-t?'tt_~_§A)"'eé'{'_§jj;e.t'V:'i:'idustrial Disputes Act, 1947', which was
V . regietereti 'tie I.D.A.No. 40/2001 before the Labour
.. H ' Vt tlhieknaagalur. Resp0nder1t~Roac:I Transport
C-Qrberation arraigned as 2?" party in the said
The Labour Court, having regard to the
record and the evidence, both oral and
confirmed the findings of the
the conductor guilty of the,2eharge=,_2and aeesgrdirliglyldhyd'g
award dt. 22/8/2088, rejeet'ed_V'h'ethe liefelrerieeflfii l~lenee
this petition.
5. Learn titioner contends
that ample not extended to
the and therefore the
findinnl-on dt. 4/ 12/2002, calls for
interference'. Per Feofitra, learned counsel for the
22'*re$ponden't:Corporation points out to paragraphs '7
2 order impugned, to contend that the
very eQ_nten~tion advanced by the learned Counsel for the
2' petitioner was repelled by an elaborate discussion.
6. Having examined the order dt. 4/12/2002,
Ar1neX.l'v'L there ean be no more doubt in my mind that
the petitioner was extended more than reasonable
~E{}~
the bus and that the tioketless passengers
penalty amount of RS300/~. According u '
Counsel, the findings recorded Zhyzfl R
Authority and the Labour tionrt hsnhtfers (J
perversity V
8. Per Contra, leetrned respondent
Corporation see}§s.__to ‘impugned as
being Well tioes not Call for
interference.’T;Le2rrfred C5.o’ovneei’*vp1a’f<:es reliance upon the
decision'-._pf Division Benches of this
court in NORTH KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
HUBLi———-& ANOTHER VS. S.S.PoLEsH11 and
I{AR;NArAr:gx'*«.S1'ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CEMQRAL _ BANGALORE & ANOTHER VS.
‘SATHYANARAYANZ in addition to the following decisions of
Court:
3(}€fi}{4) £<::r.L.J, 532%. {D8} Ersé
2
»_ ”2<o:2o3{2i; K;1r,I.,J. :25 {DB}
(11 REGIONAL MANAGER, URSRTC, E'i'A\PVAH <8:
VS. HGTI LAL & ANOTHER3
(2) REGIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND SQHAN L«£"i};4' = .. ' , _
{3} DELHITRANSPORTCQRPORA'i'iO?\i \fS;"SI5iYAM;«LAL5__ V
9. Having heard ‘the__ Iearvnei Counsel, an –. L’
examination of the Passengers’-.V_» stetem_entuiE’,x.M22,
diseioses that they we;:ie’:”tie1¥ret§eé§.S~–.at”the time “of check
and their statement jV;ii’esenee of the
conductor who This document,
without that the delinquent
eondueton theiiiféire from the ticketless
passenggere tdid: for it and with an ulterior
motive to .vm’isap_propi*i.:§ite the same, carried the
pas$e’ngei3V in ti’1e….b.us from Hassan to Shantigrama.
The fir1ding«.reCorded by the Labour Court that the 10
tiekefiess’ “.p–aS’:e3engers were travelling from Hassan to
V -V Shan’tigi{em’;i; cannot be said to be perverse. The
igabonr ‘””C.3ourt, having regard to the overwhelming
‘ T’ (é«;;ii3;3 SCC ans
3 3
.. f2.€}()4€3)1v,.i_..J. i{)7’é€
material on record constituting arnpie and sufficient
basis for recording its findings, the rnannerr of
consideration undertaken, the objectivity
adopted and the reasonableness of the ‘
opinion, are unexeeptionable.
10. in S.S.PoLEsHI’S e2tse”soupr.a,’-atDix%ision”Beneh V
of this court held that a strict and
sophisticated rules it the Indian
Evidence Aot,3~’\x}’&?»1i”i*d riot it observed
that there provided it
had The question,
whetherthere or no evidence, not in
the ssense ofdthedtedchnioeil rules governing regular Court
‘proeeedifigsbut in a fair commonsense way as men of
A Worldly wisdom wiil accept.
‘1_1A.’:. In SATHYANARAYANA’S ease supra, 21 Division
heid that the passengers’ statements containing
” “*’:oo4 AER sew 47:: §=§;e%
the signature of the Werkrnan which would
that the Conductor had collected the fare..e_{nd 9
account for it with an intentionftow fni3e;ppro.;fi£ate'”the”1
same. Further it was obserVee1V._that the;
eoileeting fare from passenge.:é”~.and “11ot’a’eeo1intt:’1g”‘ for t’
the same to the credit of the VAC3otfporation,’ hehonlti not be
permitted to Continue the the Corporation.
12. In was held that a
conductor holdefa ;of”tr1j}st’ where honesty and
integrity ” reqnirements of functioning and
that sue’i1.Vn3atte1f_é dealt with iron hands and
not lenientlyg ‘The__A’peX…{3ourt in that case upheld the
_ter1nii«1atjfon_ of eemicee of 3 bus conductor for carrying
tieket1es$V’pe;seengers in the SRTC bus, though the loss
wag as, 16:5,/5’-5 was inconsequential.
x Z In SOHAN LAL’S ease supra, the Supreme
” . C~onrt”ebeerves that once the miseonduot of non–issne of
tieiiets to passengers is proved, it cannot be said that
hex
gt:
$7
the punishment of eiiemissai was disproportionate, the’
misconduct was (me of dishonesty. V b I ” ” = I
14. In SHYAM LAIXS ease s1:Vibra;’Ihe”Ape2x:._(;Qe:£’helfl
that a statement made by a passenger haVihg_baid”
to the eenduetor is not in the fiafinfe Sf h’eafsae3}_=ex?i1riehVee.
15. In the instant case, the passengers’ statement ~
EX.1\/[22 having been there being no
rebuttal evidence of the to establish
his defense sitebbpedibdue to mechanical
breakdowni. boarded the bus at
not made out a case for
interfefehee 0if~’domestiC enquiry as Well as the
awaxfdef the”L_.é1b01i’r writ petition being without merit,
‘ V’ _ is éeeeordiirxgly rejeei:e:i;V
Sé/-
EUDGE