JUDGMENT
Nanak Chand Khichi, J.
1. This petition has been decided against the award dated June 1, 1982 (Ann.P.I) of the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby the respondent workman was ordered to be reinstated, with continuity of service with 50 per cent backwages.
2. The facts as found by the Labour Court are undisputed. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a Conductor with Punjab Roadways, Moga on March 4, 1974 and was drawing Rs. 385/- per month by way of wages and on October 6, 1978, his services were terminated. He was accused of having defrauded the management to the tune of Rs. 32.45 paise, by issuing tickets of less denomination to the passengers, while conducting Bus No. 4911 between Jagraon Banadurka. This fraud was detected by two Inspectors. A report was made against him and he was placed under suspension on December 25, 1977 and chargesheeted. The charge levelled against him was proved. After giving him show cause notice and personal hearing, he was dismissed from service.
3. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. Patiala to determine:
Whether termination of services of Shri. Nazar Singh workman is justified and in order ? If not to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled.
4. The parties took their respective pleas. The workman challenging his termination claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages whereas the management asserted that the termination was valid, having been done after holding a proper and fair enquiry. On these pleas the following issues were framed by the Labour Court:
1. Whether there has been a fair and proper enquiry,
2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?
5. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Labour Court under issue No. 1 found that as per admission of the workman, he was afforded full opportunity during the enquiry proceedings and that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, under issue No. 2, the Labour Court found favour with the suggestion of the representative of the workman that the order of dismissal from service was harsh and that lesser punishment be awarded. Consequently, invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service with 50 per cent backwages.
6. It may be mentioned here that in spite of service, no one appeared for the respondent on March 4, 1983.
7. I have heard the learned State counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the Labour Court itself found that the respondent workman had been found to have embezzled Rs. 32.45 paise which he had collected from the passengers which is itself serious charge, which might justify dismissal from service, it should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. He has further argued that if the Conductors are left off like that, it will not only encourage the same Conductor who has been held guilty of embezzlement but would also create indiscipline amongst the Conductors and may further encourage the other Conductors to embezzle the amount with the hope that they would be let off lightly. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1965-I-LLJ-462) (SC), in which it was observed as under:
“The award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders, if any, is a matter for the management to decide and if there is any justification for the punishment imposed the Tribunal should not interfere. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe. But, where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct and past record or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or their unfair labour practice.”
He has also cited Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Jamnadas Becharbhai 1983 L.I.C. 1349, The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Surat Singh and Anr., 1985 L.I.C. 10, Wimco Sramik Union v. Seventh Industrial Tribunal and Ors., 1987 L.I.C. 77, Ganga Ram v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation., 1995-2 110 P.L.R. 39 and Gurmail Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala 1995(4) RSJ 264. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), in para 2 of the judgment it was observed as under:
“xx xx If a bus conductor has been dismissed in such circumstances, his reinstatement in the same post would enable him to indulge in the same malpractice in future. Everyday he has to collect fare and issue tickets. Reinstatement in the same post would therefore involve grave risk because of the repetitive opportunity that he would get to indulge in the malpractice and the daily temptation that he would face. Perhaps he would be tempted to repair the past losses.”
In Surat Singh’s case (supra), the workman was a Conductor and he was found guilty of having defrauded the management to the tune of Rs. 7.45 paise and the Labour Court by invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, awarded lesser punishment and ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50 per cent of the backwages. A Single Bench of this Court set aside the award of the Labour Court and held that the Labour Court having found the workman to have indulged in fraud, his reinstatement justifiably could not be ordered to the post of a Conductor. If the punishment had to be mitigated, it being harsh so as to suggest victimization, it could be brought down to other milder forms. In Wimco Sramik Union’s case (supra), it was observed as under:
“xx xx the order of the dismissal passed against the workman for the proved misconduct of theft was not unjustified as to merit interference by the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The offence of theft, which was committed by the employee concerned, showed that he was dishonest and his suitability and reliability to continue in service might be affected by that reason and would have a bearing on his contract of service and as such, the said offence as a good ground for dismissing the employee concerned from the service. The fact that the workman had rendered a long period of unblemished service and the property stolen was worth only Rs. 150, did not justify a lesser punishment. Even an attempt to steal the employer’s property on the part of the workman was a serious charge and deserved nothing short of dismissal. If the workman was allowed to get away with a lesser punishment under Section 11-A, it would be very difficult for the employer to maintain discipline in the organisation. Such being the fact, and when the dismissal of the workman was preceded by a fair and proper enquiry, there was no justification for interference with the order of dismissal under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
In Ganga Ram’s case (supra) the Conductor was found to have embezzled Rs. 17.55 paise only. It was urged before the Labour Court that the amount embezzled was just a small amount and therefore, the workman should be reinstated by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The Labour Court did not accept this contention and keeping in view the seriousness of the charge proved against him, the order of termination was upheld. The writ petition filed by the workman was dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court by making the following observations:
“When the domestic enquiry has been properly held and the charge of embezzlement has been proved against the workman there is no reason to award him lesser punishment merely because the amount embezzled was small. Embezzlement, even if, it be of a small amount, is a serious offence and punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate of the proved charge and the amount embezzled whether small or large, does not affect the seriousness of the charge and the criminality of the act of the workman.”
8. In the instant case, the respondent workman defrauded the management to the extent of Rs. 32.45 paise by intentionally issuing tickets of lesser denomination to the passengers. The learned Labour Court once having found that the workman was afforded full opportunity to defend his case and that the domestic enquiry held against him was fair and just, it should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, once the respondent workman was found to have committed fraud, he loses the right to continue in service. If he is let off like this, it will not only encourage him but would also create indiscipline amongst the conductors and further encourage the other conductors to embezzle the amount with the hope that they would be let off lightly. Even in Gurmail Singh’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that every public servant holds a public post as a trustee of Public confidence and faith and once he is held guilty of committing breach of this trust of faith, he loses the right to continue in service.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned award of the Labour Court, so far it relates to the finding on issue No. 2 relief granted therein, is quashed.