Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2812 (MAD)

R. Rajaram v. Presiding Officer Labour Court

2014-08-22

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner was employed as conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division-4 Limited. He has come up with this writ petition challenging the award made in I.D.O.P.No.101/02 dated 15.05.2009 on the file of the Labour Court, Trichirapalli, (Dindigul Camp). 2. The fact of the case would be as follows: (i) The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the respondent/State Transport Corporation. On 02.02.2001, he was on duty in a bus bearing Regn.No.TN-57-N-0868, plying between Kambam and Erode. When the bus was proceeding to Erode, it was stopped at the bus-stop at Kodumudi. The passengers got down from the bus. At that time, the Checking Inspector of the respondent Corporation by name Shiek Davood made a surprise checking and he found that one passenger who got down at Kodumudi bus-stop had no ticket. When he was enquired by the Checking Inspector, he disclosed that he paid ticket charge to the Conductor, but the Conductor did not issue the ticket. In this regard, a statement was recorded by the Checking Inspector from the said passenger, in which, the petitioner as well as the driver of the bus signed. The petitioner also gave a statement more or less admitting to the guilt, which was also signed by him as well the Driver. Thereafter, the bus proceeded. The Checking Inspector duly submitted a report to the respondent Management in this regard. The respondent, thereafter, initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memorandum stating that the petitioner committed the said misconduct. The petitioner denied the said charges. According to his explanation, the passenger did not give the ticket charge to him at all. He stealthily got down from the bus and when he was enquired by the Checking Inspector, he told that he slept in the bus and forgot to purchase the ticket. But, by suppressing the said statement, a different statement was obtained from the said passenger as if ticket charge was paid by him, but the conductor had failed to issue the ticket. It was also contended that the signature of the petitioner was obtained by the Checking Inspector under duress. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was innocent. (ii) The said explanation was not accepted by the respondent Management. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer held an enquiry, during which, the Checking Inspector-Mr.Sheik Davood was examined. It was also contended that the signature of the petitioner was obtained by the Checking Inspector under duress. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was innocent. (ii) The said explanation was not accepted by the respondent Management. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer held an enquiry, during which, the Checking Inspector-Mr.Sheik Davood was examined. The documents including the statement of the passenger were all marked on the side of the Management. The petitioner gave oral evidence. Having considered all the above materials, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges stood proved. Based on the same, after following the procedure established, the respondent Management dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.O.P.No.101/2002. Though in the said dispute, the petitioner had initially raised an issue challenging the fairness of the enquiry held, later on, he withdrew the challenge by making necessary endorsement. Therefore, it was treated that the enquiry was held fairly and properly, requiring no more adjudication. 3. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in and the file relating to the enquiry and all the other connected records were marked. Having considered all the above, the Labour Court found that the charges had been proved as rightly held by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the Labour Court found no reasons to interfere with the order of dismissal. Thus, the Labour Court dismissed the Industrial dispute vide order dated 15.05.2009. That is why the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the grounds raised in the writ petition, would submit that the evidence of the Checking Inspector ought not to have been accepted as a gospel truth. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the passenger of the bus had not been examined and in the absence of the same, the statement given by the passenger ought not to have been relied on as a substantive piece of evidence. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the passenger of the bus had not been examined and in the absence of the same, the statement given by the passenger ought not to have been relied on as a substantive piece of evidence. It is also further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the so-called statement said to have been given by the passenger and other one said to have been given by the petitioner were all obtained under duress and therefore, the order of dismissal, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer ought to have been interfered with by the Labour Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would make a last attempt to say that assuming that the charges had been proved, the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate, therefore, the same should be interfered with and suitably modified. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that non-examination of the passengers is immaterial because the oral evidence of the Checking Inspector, which is substantive in character is very much available, which convincingly proves the guilt of the conductor. The learned counsel would further submit that non-examination of the passengers is immaterial as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in several cases. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that by way of oral and documentary evidence it had been proved that the petitioner had committed the above said misconduct, for which punishment was imposed. With regard to quantum of punishment, the Supreme Court has held in very many cases that even the misappropriation of Rs.5/- will be a ground to dismiss the employee. The learned counsel would further point out that the Supreme Court has held in number of cases that it is not the quantum of misappropriation which matters, but it is the intention to cheat the employer. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Labour Court does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 9. I have heard the above submissions. 10. At the outset, I have to say that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted as the power of appeal to reconsider the evidence. 9. I have heard the above submissions. 10. At the outset, I have to say that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted as the power of appeal to reconsider the evidence. Based on the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, which came to be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the Labour Court dismissed the Industrial Dispute, filed by the petitioner. If it is a case, where the Enquiry Officer committed any serious illegality, thereby violated the principles of natural justice or there had been no evidence at all, it is possible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 11. In the case on hand, absolutely there is no material available on record to hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. The Checking Inspector is an eye witness to the occurrence, who had been examined before the Enquiry Officer. He has categorically stated about the occurrence and there is no reason to discard the said evidence. Apart from that, the statement of the passenger and the statement of the petitioner are very much available, which would speak volumes against the petitioner. When the evidence of the Checking Inspector, which is substantive in character is available, which is duly supported by other material evidence, I am not in a position to hold that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. The non-examination of the passengers, in this case is immaterial, because, it is not as though, the punishment has been imposed solely based on the statement of the passenger without examination. Here, in this case, the statement is used only as corroborative evidence, whereas the evidence of the Checking Inspector remains to be substantive. In a domestic enquiry, it is not necessary to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubt as it is in other criminal cases. It is suffice that the charges are proved by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities. Once such principle is applied and evidence is available, in the case perused, absolutely, there is no scope warranting interference at the hands of this Court into the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, which came to be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. 12. It is suffice that the charges are proved by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities. Once such principle is applied and evidence is available, in the case perused, absolutely, there is no scope warranting interference at the hands of this Court into the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, which came to be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. 12. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, though it is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that is shockingly disproportionate, I find it difficult to accept the same. As has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in number of cases, it is not the quantum of misappropriation, which matters, but it is the intention to cheat the employer, that matters irrespective of the fact that the amount so misappropriated is very meagre amount. It is not the only occasion where the petitioner has been found guilty. On 65 previous occasions, the petitioner had been punished. It is pointed out that in those cases, the petitioner had been punished for the similar misconduct i.e failure to issue ticket, after collecting the charges of ticket. 13. In view of all the above, I do not find any merit at all in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.