Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v. Kamruddin , (SC) BS197950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6195 of 2006]. D/d. 12.5.2009.

Divisional Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C. - Appellant

Versus

Kamruddin - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocate.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - Termination of service - Misconduct - Bus conductor found guilty of having not issued tickets to passengers on several occasions - Repeated his conduct despite warnings - Departmental inquiry held and his services terminated on grounds of proved misconduct - Labour Court ordered re-instatement - Held, Bus conductor acts in a fiduciary capacity whose duty is to collect fares and deposit the same with Road Transport Corporation - If he fails to do so, it will be a misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal - Order of re- instatement accordingly set aside. 2001(1) SCT 787 (SC), 2008(2) SCT 174 (SC) and 2002(10) SCC 330 relied.

[Paras 9 to 14]

Cases Referred :-

RSRTC v. Shri Ram Yadav, 1995(3) SCT 789 : [1995(3) WLC 16].

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagyo Mal [1994 Supp (1) SCC 573].

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001(1) SCT 787 : (2001)2 SCC 574.

Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma [(2002)10 SCC 330].

Uttaranchal Transport Corporation v. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, 2008(2) SCT 174 : 2008(2) RAJ 525 : [2008(12) SCC 131].

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Extent of interference with the quantum of punishment imposed by an employer on a delinquent employee by the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix :

4. Respondent raised an industrial dispute. By reason of an Award dated 16.7.1996, the Labour Court despite finding that the enquiry was fairly conducted opined that the punishment inflicted on the respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, stating :

5. A writ petition preferred thereagainst by the Corporation has been dismissed both by a learned single judge. A Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dismissed an intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant.

6. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that in a case of this nature where the respondent has been found guilty of commission of a misconduct of misappropriation, no interference with the quantum of punishment was warranted.

7. Mr. B.K. Satija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment as imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service having regard to the guidelines issued by the Corporation itself was wholly disproportionate to the charges of misconduct framed against the respondent. Learned counsel in this connection would draw our attention to the statement made in the counter affidavit, which reads as under :

8. Our attention was also drawn to a corrigendum issued on 24.7.1982, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :

Our attention was also drawn to the Office Order dated 12.01.2006, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :-

9. It is not a case where the misconduct against the respondent had not been proved. It is also not a case where the domestic enquiry was found to have been conducted in an unfair manner or contrary to the principles of natural justice. The services of the respondent had been terminated while the period of probation was not over. As a conductor, his performance during the period of probation was found to be unsatisfactory. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him while he was found to have committed similar misconduct for the fifth time. It is also beyond any doubt or dispute that he had also been served with a letter of warning.

10. The power of Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the quantum of punishment although cannot be denied, but it is also a well settled principle of law that the said power should be exercised judiciously.

11. The question with regard to imposition of appropriate punishment upon a conductor of a bus belonging to a corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 came up for consideration before this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, 2001(1) SCT 787 : [(2001)2 SCC 574], wherein it was held :

12. Standing Order No. 36 whereto our attention has been drawn merely provides for different nature of penalties which can be imposed on a worker stating that penalties specified at Serial Nos. 5 to 7 therein would be appealable. A corrigendum thereto was issued on 24.7.1982 by way of clarification with regard to the full route fare as contained in Circular No. 625 dated 5.6.1982. The said corrigendum has nothing to do with the nature or quantum of penalty. The same does not provide for a substitution of the penalty provided for in the Certified Standing Order. In any event, Certified Standing Order would prevail over such circulars.

13. It may be true that in execution of the Award passed by the Labour Court, for a short time respondent was put back in service. This Court, however, as indicated hereinbefore, stayed the operation of the judgment by reason whereof Award as also the judgment of the High Court became non-operational. We are, therefore, of the opinion that by itself that may not be a ground to refrain ourselves from following the authoritative binding precedents.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.