Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1929 (MAD)

K. Palaniappan v. Labour Court, Coimbatore

2010-04-22

T.RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner raising the Industrial Dispute while confirming order of dismissal passed by the second respondent Transport Corporation. 2. When the petitioner was serving as conductor in the bus bearing registration No.TN-38 054 plying in Perur – Polytechnic route at Coimbatore, the said vehicle was checked by the Inspectors at Selvapuram point at about 3.35 p.m on 24.2.1998. When the inspecting squad boarded the bus, there were about 61 passengers. But unfortunately, the petitioner being a conductor has issued 45 tickets and 16 passengers were not issued tickets when they were travelling. On seeing that there is no entry for 16 passengers in the trip card, the petitioner was enquired by the said checking Inspector. The petitioner had also explained to the checking inspector that due to over crowd, the petitioner was not able to issue tickets to all the passengers. Thereafter, the Checking Inspector issued tickets to 14 passengers. Subsequently, for having committed an offence under Standing Order 14 (D) (ab) for non-issuance of ticket to all the passengers, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegation made in the charge memo. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, on completion of the domestic enquiry, submitted his report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. After submission of the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice and thereafter having found that the explanation is not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority by taking into account the past record of the petitioner that he had suffered 19 punishments under the second respondent – Corporation, passed an order of dismissal. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner laid a claim before the labour Court. The Labour Court also keeping in mind the past service records indicating the bad conduct of the petitioner, namely that he suffered almost 19 punishments, refused to accept the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the award was passed affirming the order of dismissal issued by the second respondent - Corporation. The Labour Court also keeping in mind the past service records indicating the bad conduct of the petitioner, namely that he suffered almost 19 punishments, refused to accept the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the award was passed affirming the order of dismissal issued by the second respondent - Corporation. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground that the petitioner had suffered 19 punishments in the hands of the second respondent – Corporation, the labour Court refused to consider the genuine claim of the petitioner and the allegation made by the checking Inspector that the petitioner was not in a position to issue tickets to 16 passengers on the crucial day was not properly supported and corroborated by any evidence produced by the second respondent – Corporation and without considering the case of the petitioner, the labour Court has wrongly accepted the case of the second respondent – Corporation and as a result, the petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood and therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was sought to be quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides. 6. Admittedly, while the petitioner was serving as a conductor in Bus bearing Registration No. TN.38 054 in Perur – Polytechnic route at Coimbatore, the inspecting squad intercepted the bus at Selvapuram point at about 3.35 p.m. and unfortunately, the petitioner, being the conductor, was found to have not issued tickets to almost 16 passengers. Therefore, the inspecting squad issued tickets to 14 passengers and thereafter for having committed an offence under the Standing Order 14 (D) (ab) for non-issuance of tickets to the passengers, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the same was rejected by the second respondent - Corporation. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer also after giving all reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to support his case, completed the enquiry holding that the petitioner had miserably failed to establish his case of innocence. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but the same was rejected by the second respondent - Corporation. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer also after giving all reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to support his case, completed the enquiry holding that the petitioner had miserably failed to establish his case of innocence. After the submission of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued calling for his explanation and thereafter, the second respondent – Corporation having not satisfied with his explanation, passed an order of dismissal from service of the second respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner laid a claim before the Labour Court. The Labour Court also having seen that the petitioner was repeatedly committing the same mistake for about 19 times, was not inclined to show any indulgence by exercising the power conferred under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Admittedly, this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence to a person who has suffered 19 punishments in the hands of the second respondent - Corporation. Therefore, as it is a well settled legal position that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot modify or interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the Labour Court, hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.