Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4586 (MAD)

P. Shanmugam v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2014-12-12

D.HARI PARANTHAMAN

body2014
ORDER : 1. The petitioner was a Conductor employed by the second respondent Transport Corporation. The petitioner was on duty on 24.07.1999 in the Town Bus bearing No. TN-27-N-0496 that was plying between Eraiyamangalam and Tiruchengode. It started its trip at 4.50 a.m. and proceeded towards Tiruchengode. While so, the bus was checked at Kokkarayanpettai bus stand around 05.20 a.m. by two checking officials. At that time, the officials found that on physical verification, there were 12 passengers and 4 luggages. But an entry was made in the invoice only for 10 passengers for their travel and 3 luggages. When the tickets were physically examined, it was found that 2 passengers handed over tickets that did not belong to the trip and it was already sold tickets. Besides the same, one luggage ticket was handed over by one of the passengers and that was also an already sold ticket. Those passengers were travelling from Kokkarayanpettai to Tiruchengode. 2. According to the written statement of one of the passengers, during the check up, he gave Rs. 2.75 for his trip and he was given a ticket bearing No. 00684. Another passenger also gave a written statement during the check up that she gave Rs. 2.75 for her travel from Kavundampalayam to Tiruchengode and also Rs. 2.75 for the luggage which she carried and she was given the tickets bearing Nos. 00653 and 00654. 3. Since those tickets did not belong to the trip as per the invoice, an irregularity report was given by the checking officials. They also took statement from the driver of the bus. The petitioner also gave a statement admitting that he gave those tickets that were handed over by the passengers at the time of checking. The tickets were seized and the passengers were issued proper tickets. 4. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 27.07.1999 was issued by the second respondent Transport Corporation making allegation that the petitioner issued three already sold tickets to two passengers for their travel and luggage and the value of each ticket was Rs. 2.75. 5. The petitioner gave explanation denying the charges. Hence, an enquiry was held. In the enquiry, two Checking Officials as well as the Driver of the bus were examined. They categorically stated about the aforesaid fact. They were not cross examined by the petitioner workman. 2.75. 5. The petitioner gave explanation denying the charges. Hence, an enquiry was held. In the enquiry, two Checking Officials as well as the Driver of the bus were examined. They categorically stated about the aforesaid fact. They were not cross examined by the petitioner workman. The statement made by the petitioner at the time of checking as well as the individual statement of the passengers and the tickets that were seized from the passengers were marked as Exhibits in the enquiry. 6. The petitioner took a stand in the enquiry that he did not issue those tickets. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges were proved based on the statement of the passengers. In those statement of the passengers, the signatures of the driver as well as the petitioner were obtained. In those circumstances, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved. 7. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the second respondent Transport Corporation by an order dated 13.01.2000. 8. The petitioner took up his non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 592/2000. Before the Labour Court, both parties filed their pleadings. The second respondent Transport Corporation produced the entire enquiry report before the first respondent Labour Court. After hearing both sides, the first respondent Labour Court held that the charges were proved. However, the Labour Court modified the punishment of dismissal into discharge, by the impugned award dated 08.02.2005. 9. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the award dated 08.02.2005 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 592/2000, wherein the Labour Court modified the punishment of dismissal into discharge and sought direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. 10. Heard both sides. 11. Pursuant to the admission of the writ petition, the Labour Court records are produced before this Court and I have perused the same. 12. In para 8 of the award of the Labour Court, the Labour Court has held as follows. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the Labour Court, particularly when the passengers gave categorical statement that they were issued tickets bearing Nos. 00653, 00654 and 00684, when they paid the fare. Those tickets are admittedly did not belong to the trip. It was the sold tickets. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the Labour Court, particularly when the passengers gave categorical statement that they were issued tickets bearing Nos. 00653, 00654 and 00684, when they paid the fare. Those tickets are admittedly did not belong to the trip. It was the sold tickets. Therefore, the petitioner has to explain as to how he gave those tickets. There is no reason to disagree with the version of the passengers and also the driver of the bus. The driver also admitted that he signed those statements. However, he was not cross examined by the petitioner. In fact, the checking officials were examined and they were also not cross examined. In those circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on such a finding, the second respondent Transport Corporation passed the order of dismissal. 14. In fact, the learned counsel for the second respondent Transport Corporation has stated that there is no distinction between dismissal and discharge and the workman would not be entitled to any benefit, even if it is modified as discharge. In these circumstances, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and those charges are also serious in the sense that the tickets were sold tickets, which means that the Conductor had in possession of the sold tickets to resale the same. It was not the case that he collected money and failed to issue tickets due to heavy work. That is, if it is a case wherein there are about 80-100 passengers and he was not able to issue tickets, though he collected fare and he did not make entries in the invoice. It is not so. Here, the total passengers were only 12. The passengers were in possession of the old tickets. 15. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot find fault with the order of dismissal, particularly when the Labour Court held that the charges were proved. In fact, there is no reason to modify the award from dismissal into discharge. I am not inclined to interfere with the award at the instance of the workman. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. No costs.