Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5104 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18441 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18441 of 2000)
Petitioner: Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C.
Respondent: Ghanshyam Sharma
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5104 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18441 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18441 of 2000)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL , N. SANTOSH HEGDE & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 08, 2001
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 11(A) – Dismissal – Interference – Conductor of state road transport held guilty of misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket – Re-instatement with continuity, but without backwages. Held that order of dismissal could not be interfered. Jurisdiction is to be exercised judiciously.
Held:
Though under section 11 (A), the labour court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the road transport corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.
(Para 5)
(Para 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, x(JT 2001 (2) SC 72)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent in the present case was employed as a conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the tickets to the passengers. In the instant case, it was found that he was carrying 23½ passengers without ticket and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service.
3. On a reference being made, the labour court invoked its jurisdiction under section 11(A) and while upholding the finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, it directed the respondent’s reinstatement, with continuity of service but without backwages. The learned single judge of the High Court set aside the award which decision has been reversed by the division bench. Hence, this appeal.
4. This Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, (JT 2001 (2) SC 72), has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the road transport corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.
5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the single judge in the present case that the labour court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under section 11 (A), the labour court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the road transport corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the order of the division bench is set aside and that of the single judge restored. No costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent in the present case was employed as a conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the tickets to the passengers. In the instant case, it was found that he was carrying 23½ passengers without ticket and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service.
3. On a reference being made, the labour court invoked its jurisdiction under section 11(A) and while upholding the finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, it directed the respondent’s reinstatement, with continuity of service but without backwages. The learned single judge of the High Court set aside the award which decision has been reversed by the division bench. Hence, this appeal.
4. This Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, (JT 2001 (2) SC 72), has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the road transport corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.
5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the single judge in the present case that the labour court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under section 11 (A), the labour court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the road transport corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the order of the division bench is set aside and that of the single judge restored. No costs.
