Allowed

R.S.R.T.C.and Anr. v. Shanker Lal and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Nov 2007SAW/872/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Labour Court and Single Judge award reinstating a conductor fired for carrying passengers without tickets. Court held interference impermissible under Supreme Court precedents and quashed the reinstatement order, upholding the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Award of Labour Court and judgment of Single Judge set aside; order of punishment upheld; appeal allowed.

R.S.R.T.C.and Anr. Vs Shanker Lal and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

¶4

SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 872 of 2007

¶5

Mr. BS BHATI, for the appellant / petitioner

¶6

Mr. KULDEEP MATHUR, for the respondent

¶7

Date of Order : 23.11.2007

¶8

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER

¶9

The matter comes up for final order on stay. However, with the consent of both the learned counsel, matter was heard finally.

¶10

Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, appellant – Corporation preferred a writ petition, alleging that the learned Labour Court wrongly interfered in the order of dismissal. It was contended that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties before the Labour

¶11

Court, workman was found guilty of misconduct of having six passengers without ticket. However, looking to the amount involved therein, learned Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. The challenge to the award was made mainly referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue.

¶12

¶13

Considering the merit of the case in reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶14

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 and also in the matter of Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002) 10 SCC page 330, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the employee was not fit to be reinstated however, looking to the fact that pursuant to the impugned award dated 07.12.1994, the workman was reinstated in service on 05.01.1996. The award was modified by maintaining the reinstatement but imposing a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as penalty on the workman for his delinquency apart from denial of back wages. The learned Single Judge had also considered the subsequent conduct of the employee, where he was found involved in the similar delinquency of carrying passengers without ticket and the corporation had awarded punishment in terms of fine, which otherwise has been narrated at page 6 and 7 of the judgment and quoted hereunder :-

¶15

“CHART SHOWING MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT WORKING AFTER JOINING HIS DUTIES.

¶16

-------------- Charge-sheet	--------------- Charges.	------------- Penalties	----------------- Order Nos.
Nos. & dates. -------------- 1. 1176	--------------- Found carrying	Imposes. -------------	& dates. -----------------
dt.23.3.98	2 passengers
	without	fine of	1520 dt.
	Tickets	Rs.3000/	30.3.99

¶17

¶18

2. 6007	found carrying
dt.15.10.99	5 passengers
	without fine of	7054dt.
	Tickets Rs.3000/	4.12.01
3. 6006	deposited Rs.100
dt.15.10.99	less in fine of	7853 dt.
	Corporation Rs.500/	4.12.01
4. 5757	found carrying
dt.5.10.01	5 passengers
	without fine of	7637 dt.
	Tickets Rs.3000/	6.12.01
5. 2085	Due to his
dt.20.3.03	full absence a route of 250 km. was cancelled by which huge financial loss was caused to the corporation fine of	5101 dt.
	Rs.1750	9.7.03
6. 3466 dt.13.5.03	Due to his Will full absence a route to 250 km. was cancelled by which huge financial loss was caused to the
	corporation. fine of	2894 dt.
	Rs.1750/	15.4.04

¶19

According to the learned Single Judge when corporation itself has not pass an order of dismissal in regard to the delinquencies as quoted above, then it is proper to maintain order of reinstatement with imposition of penalty and denial of back wages.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for Corporation submitted that in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

¶21

¶22

Court, order of reinstatement cannot be maintained more specifically when, even after reinstatement, the conduct of the employee remained the same. It was thus urged that the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the award of the learned labour Court deserves to be set aside.

¶23

Per contra, counsel for the non-applicant submits that in light of the facts available to the record, when the employee was reinstated on 05.01.1996 and he was continued by the corporation itself even after taking note of the subsequent delinquencies then the fact of his delinquency, as involved in the present matter was rightly been given treatment looking to the fact of reinstatement more so when three is imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- by learned Single Judge apart from denial of the of back-wages of the intervening period. It was thus, prayed that the judgment of learned Single Judge should be maintained.

¶24

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred above, it is settled law that a Conductor, as involved in the delinquency of carrying passengers without tickets and the charges found to be proved then the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate. In the light of those judgments, a person cannot be given benefit of reinstatement, even if during

¶25

¶26

the pendency of the writ petition, interim order was not passed in favour of the employer and the employee was reinstated. The basic issue remains as to whether the interference of the learned labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is warranted in the cases of misconduct of a Conductor, carrying passenger without ticket.

¶27

We are of the view that in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge so also consistently upholding the same view even in the judgments in U.P.S.R.T.C Vs. Mahendra Nath Tiwari & Anr., reported in JT 2005(10) SC 209 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal reported in JT 2006(12) SC 412, it has been held that when the charge against the employee was held to be proved then neither labour Court nor learned Single Judge should have interfered in the order of dismissal in a case of present nature. It may be observed here that a compassion was invoked before the learned Single Judge, which did prevail before the learned Single Judge on the basis of the fact that after passing of the award since there was no interim stay by this Court, the employee had been reinstated but then that compassion is also misplaced in view of even subsequent consistent conduct of the employee as noticed by the learned Single Judge. May be that for the subsequent delinquencies the employer imposed the punishment as noticed by the learned

¶28

¶29

Single Judge, but then the fact does remain that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court even the delinquencies found resulting into impugned order of dismissal did not permit any interference and obviously could not attract any compassion. It is writ large that even for attracting compassion, the employee has not at all improved his conduct.

¶30

We are accordingly, of the view that the award passed by labour Court as modified by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

In view of the above discussion, the award of the labour Court dated 07.12.1994 and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2007 are set aside. The order of punishment is upheld and the appeal is accordingly allowed with the order as no cost.

¶32

( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.

¶33

preety

R.S.R.T.C.and Anr. v. Shanker Lal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.R.T.C.and Anr. v. Shanker Lal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rahul Allied Industries Vs K.U.M.S.Anaj, Jodhpur

Chairman,Municipal Board,Sheoganj and Anr. Vs Labour Court,Jodhpur and Anr.

Bhagirath Jyani Vs State and Ors.

Jalam Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Bhoora Ram and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

M/S Bhanavi Agro Pvt.Ltd. Vs State and Ors.