ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. This appeal by the appellant-2nd respondent is directed against an order of the learned single Judge whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation for quashing of the award of the Labour Court, Anantapur dated 27-5-1989 in ID No.2149 of 1988 was allowed.
2. The appellant herein was a Conductor working in the 2nd respondent Corporation.
He was charge-sheeted on two charges. The first charge was that he collected an excess fare of Rs.2/- from four passengers by issuing tickets of denomination of Rs.2-75 ps. only to each of the passengers instead of issuing tickets for denomination of Rs.3-25 ps.
The second charge was that he closed the tray numbers of all denominations in the statistical returns for stage No.6 without correctly issuing the tickets.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated wherein the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20-11-1987. A show-cause notice was given to him on 19-12-1987 notifying the proposed punishment of removal, from service. The appellant herein submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice, upon consideration whereof, an order of termination dated 4-1-1988 was passed. An appeal preferred there against by the appellant herein was dismissed on 12-8-1998. Thereafter, an application was filed by him under the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent herein, inter alia, held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted validly and fairly. Purporting to exercise its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, however, the
Labour Court held that having regard to the fact that the amount illegally collected by the appellant was a paltry sum of Rs.2/-, the punishment meted out to him was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Labour Court passed the following Award:
“A. The order of the Management as far as imposing the punishment of removal is concerned is set aside for the reasons mentioned on point No. 1
B. For the reasons mentioned in point No.2, the Management is directed to reinstate the workman as Conductor within two months from the date of notification of this Award.
C. The workman is entitled to 50% of back wages and he is not entitled to monetary value of the increments. He shall be entitled to only notional increments without monetary benefit from the period of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement. His seniority shall be protected. He is not entitled to any other allowances.
D. The arrears so calculated shall be paid to him within two months from the date of notification of this Award.”
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned Labour Court having exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant under Section 11-A of the Court, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. The learned single Judge, relying on the basis of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in G.R. Reddy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, , held:
“Large as the discretion of the Labour Court is under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the plenitude of such discretion does not extend to condone serious cases of
misconduct on an irrational reasoning that the amount involved in the misappropriation, is paltry.”
4. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is no longer res Integra. A Conductor in Public Road Transport Corporation hold an office of public trust. If he is found guilty of commission of breach of such trust, irrespective of the sum involved, normally, stringent punishment is called for.
Having regard to the fact that both the charges against the appellant were proved, it cannot be said to be a case where the learned single Judge said to have exercised his discretion erroneously.
5. In Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh, , the Apex Court while dealing with a case of misappropriation held:
“6. As stated above, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the Management removing the workmen from the service and reinstating them with 25% back wages. Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. (Re : Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, ). In UP. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary, , this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a Conductor serving with the UP State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that alleged misconduct of the Conductor was attempted to cause loss of Rs.65/- to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs.2-35 but recovering @ Rs.5.35 per head and also by making entry in the way bill as having received the amount of Rs.2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs.2-85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that Corporation removing the Conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited v. Kala Singh , this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting the milk from various centers and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in milk centers and also inflated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held that “in view of proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that Management has lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the ID Act, to grant relief with minor penalty”.
6. Yet again, recently in a judgment by the Apex Court on 22-1-2000 in Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2000 (1) AIR SCW 593, held:
“On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident
that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service as a Conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Furthermore, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation.
It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either nor issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act is a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.”
7. In this case, the appellant herein was found to be guilty of commission of misconduct which is systematic in nature and thus it is not a case where the right of the employer in awarding the punishment
can be said to be an irrational one warranting interference by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.