Past Conduct Of Workman Must Be Looked Into While Passing Order Of Dismissal: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of a conductor working with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who was charged and dismissed for non-issuing of tickets to passengers travelling on the bus.A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the appeal filed by the corporation and said “The...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of a conductor working with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who was charged and dismissed for non-issuing of tickets to passengers travelling on the bus.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the appeal filed by the corporation and said “The disciplinary authority, while taking into consideration the findings of the inquiry officer and passing the order of penalty, is required to look into the past conduct of the workman. Needless to observe that Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 also mandates to refer to the past conduct and history sheet of the workman.”
It added “The respondent was involved in 122 cases in the past. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the same, passed an order of punishment and rightly dismissed the respondent from the service. Hence, the Labour Court could not have viewed the order of punishment so lightly. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.”
It was stated that on January 27, 2013, it was found that conductor N N Mahadeva had failed to issue tickets to three passengers who were travelling from Gonikoppa to B.Shettageri and had not collected a fare of Rs.17, each, a total amounting to Rs.51 (Rupees Fifty One only). The Checking Officials submitted a detailed report to the Corporation.
The articles of charge were issued to the respondent. He submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges were proved. The respondent was issued with the second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer and the past history of 122 cases. He submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the materials on record, passed an order of dismissal on 21.07.2015.
Mahadeva, questioned the order of dismissal by filing a Claim Petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Mysuru. The court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper, vide award dated:07.06.2017 partly allowed the Claim Petition and modified the order of punishment directing the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service and ordered that the Corporation shall withhold two increments of the respondent cumulatively and bring down the salary status with those two increments.
The corporation argued that when once the Labour Court concludes that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is not perverse, it could not have concluded that the order of punishment is disproportionate.
The bench noted that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.
Then it said “This Court vide order dated:29.05.2018, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Even after the reinstatement, the respondent/ workman is involved in almost ten misconduct cases, as is evident from the history sheet.”
Following this it observed “The duty of a Conductor is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid a salary for this work. In the present case, the workman has failed to discharge his duties diligently and honestly. Hence, I have no hesitation in saying that he is not interested in discharging his professional duties diligently. Therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy, muchless a misplaced sympathy.”
Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the labour court order and confirmed the order of dismissal.
Appearance: Advocate Sanjeev B L for Appellant.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
Case Title: The Divisional Controller, KSRTC AND N N Mahadeva
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55722 OF 2017