INTHECOURTOFSHRIUMEDSINGHGREWAL POLCXVIIROOMNO.22:KKDCOURTS:DELHI [CASE NUMBER](OldLIR243/10) UniqueIDNo.02402C0349152010 INTHEMATTEROF: Sh.[ENTITY], S/oSh.HotiLal, R/oJagJeevanNagar,NaiBasti, TediBagia,Agra,UP Workman Versus TheChairman M/s.DelhiTransportCorporation I.P.Estate,NewDelhi110002 Management DATEOFINSTITUTION : 07.12.2010. DATEONWHICHAWARDRESERVED: 16.08.2016. DATEONWHICHAWARDPASSED : 20.08.2016. AWARD: 1. Vide Order No. F.24(194)/09/Lab./CD/949 dated 30.11.10 issuedbyGovernmentofNCTofDelhi,areferencewassentto thisCourtwiththefollowingterms: "Whether termination of services of Sh. Amrit Lal S/o Sh. Hoti Lal, by the management is illegal and/or unjustified; andifso,towhatreliefisheentitled?" [CASE NUMBER] 1/16 2. Claimant's case is that he had joined the management as conductorandwaslastlypostedatKalkajiDepotwithbadgeNo. 24533. Hewaswronglychallanedbyraidingteammemberson 06.09.2006 on the facts that he had not given tickets to four passengersdespitecollectingduefareofRs.48/whenhewason dutyonbusNo.DL1PB5811plyingbetweenDelhiandAligarh. TheenquirywasconductedbySh.[ENTITY] independent witness or passenger was examined by the management. HehadtoldEnquiryOfficerthatthereadingteam membershadobtainedhissignaturesonblankpapers.Hehadalso toldhimthathehadnotissuedticketstofourpassengersbecause theyhadnotpaidhimfare.Despiteit,hewasheldguiltyandon histaintedreport,thedisciplinaryauthorityterminatedhisservice on29.06.2007.Heisjoblesssincethen. 3. Writtenstatementistotheeffectthattheclaimantwason dutyonbusNo.5611on06.09.2006plyingonDelhiAligarh route.Thesaidbuswascheckedat4.00p.m.nearVillageJattari and the reading team members found that the claimant had not issuedticketstofourpassengersdespitecollectingfareofRs.48/. The passengers made statement in writing before raiding team membersandwhentheywereconfrontedwithclaimant,hehad admittedhismistakeandissuedfourunpunchedticketsofRs.10/ each and four unpunched tickets of Rs.2/ each. Statement of [CASE NUMBER] 2/16 passengerswascountersignedbyclaimantandhewaschallaned onthesameday.Sh.[ENTITY] downprocedure.Heexaminedcheckingofficialsandclaimantwas givenopportunitytocrossexaminethemwhichheavailed.Letters weresenttotheconcernedpassengersalsotogiveevidence,but theydidnotcomeforward.Opportunitywasgiventotheclaimant to produce evidence in defence, but he declined to avail. The Enquiry Officer held claimant guilty partially. The disciplinary authority,aftergoingthroughenquiryproceedings,reportandpast recordoftheclaimant,issuedterminationorderdated29.06.2007 [ACT] 4. Followingissueswereframedon01.06.2012: (i) Whethertheenquiryconductedbythemanagementagainst the workman was in violation of principles of natural justice?OPW (ii)Whethertheclaimsuffersfromdelayandlatches?OPM. (iii) Aspertermsofreference. 5. In order to get declared enquiry proceedings invalid, the claimanttenderedhisaffidavitinevidenceasEx.WW1/1andrelied uponfollowingdocuments: (i) Ex.WW1/Aisterminationorderdated29.06.2007. (ii)Ex.WW1/Bisjanchreport. (iii) Ex.WW1/Cischallanoftheclaimant. [CASE NUMBER] 3/16 (iv) Ex.WW1/Dischargesheetdated22.09.2006. (v) Ex.WW1/Eisenquiryreport. (vi) Ex.WW1/F dated 06.10.2006 is representation to the claimantbymanagement. 6. The management examined its Depot Manager Sh. [ENTITY] claimantonthebasisofchallan,statementofpassengers,seized ticketsandcheckingreport.Theclaimanthadgivenrepresentation to the management on 06.09.2006. Reply to the chargesheet submitted by claimant was not satisfactory and hence, detailed enquirywasinitiatedwhichwasconductedaspertheprinciplesof naturaljustice.Herelieduponfollowingdocuments: (i) Copyofchallandt.06.09.06asEx.MW1/1. (ii)Copyofpassengersstatementdt.06.09.06asEx.MW1/2. (iii) CopyseizedticketsasEx.MW1/3. (iv) Copyofcheckingreportdt.06.09.06asEx.MW1/4. (v) Copyaschargesheetdt.22.09.06asEx.MW1/5(2pages). (vi) Copy of workman's representation dt. 06.09.06 as Ex. MW1/6. (vii) CopyextractofcomplaintbookasEx.MW1/7. (viii) Copyofordersheetdt.11.09.06asEx.MW1/8. (ix) Copyofwaybilldt.06.09.06asEx.MW1/9(2pages) (x) CopyofenquiryproceedingsasEx.MW1/10(7pages) [CASE NUMBER] 4/16 (xi) Copyofenquiryfindingsdt.25.05.07as Ex.MW1/11(3 pages). IssueNo.1: 7. Thisissuehasalreadybeendecidedinfavourofmanagement andagainstclaimantbythiscourtvideorderdated30.07.2016by holdingthattheEnquiryOfficerhadnotviolatedanyprincipleof natural justice and that his report is not suffering from any infirmity. IssueNo.2: 8. Theserviceoftheclaimantwasterminatedon29.06.2007 andhefiledthepresentcaseon07.12.2010i.e.after3andyears. ThereisnoperiodoflimitationprescribedintheI.D.Act,1947for filingcaseagainsttermination. In [PRECEDENT]AIR1999SupremeCourt1351,theapexCourtheldthat noreferencetothe LabourCourtcanbegenerallyquestionedon thegroundof delayalone. Evenin acasewherethedelayis showntobeexisting,thetribunal,labourcourt,dealingwiththe case,canappropriatelymouldthereliefbydecliningtograntback wagestotheworkmantillthedateheraisedthedemandregarding hisillegalretrenchment/terminationordismissal. [CASE NUMBER] 5/16 9. Inviewofabovediscussion,itisheldthatthecaseisnot suffering from any delay and latches. This issue is decided in favouroftheclaimantandagainstthemanagement. IssueNo.3: 10. Ld.ARWarguedthatasperenquiryreportEx.WW1/E,the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that charge against claimant was proved partially because the management had not checkedthecashoftheclaimantandhadalsonotexaminedany independentwitness/passengerbeforehim.Benefitofthatfinding begiventotheclaimant. Ld.ARMarguedthatthatpointhasalreadybeendecided againstworkerinenquiryissue. 11. It is correct that the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusionthatchargewaspartiallyprovedagainsttheclaimant. Reasonofcomingtothatconclusionwasthatthemanagementhad notexaminedanypassengerbeforehimandraidingteammembers hadnotcheckedclaimant'scash.Thegroundofnonexaminationof passengerhadalreadybeendealtinenquiryorderdated30.07.2016 and it has gone against the claimant. Had the raiding team memberscheckedthecashoftheclaimantandhadhebeenfound in excess by Rs. 48/, that circumstance would have been conclusiveproofofdishonestyoftheclaimant. Thatdeficiency [CASE NUMBER] 6/16 hadbeensuppliedbydocumentswhichwerepreparedinspoti.e. challanEx.WW1/Candpassenger'sstatementEx.MW1/2. When the claimant was confronted with the passengers, he gave unpunched tickets Ex.MW1/3 of Rs.48/ to the raiding team members which they handed over to the passengers. These documents prove that claimant had not issued tickets to the passengersdespitecollectingduefareofRs.48fromthem. 12. ThenextargumentsofLd.ARWisthatthesignaturesofthe claimantwereobtainedonblankpapers. Thatpointhasalreadygoneagainsttheclaimantvideenquiry orderdated30.07.2016. 13. In [PRECEDENT] theallegations againsttheworkmenwereofbreachoftrustandmisappropriation andfollowingwasheldbytheApexCourt: "6 Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount,thereisnoquestionofshowing uncalledforsympathyandreinstatingthe employeesinservice. Lawonthispoint is well settled. (Re.: [PRECEDENT].) In [PRECEDENT]. this Court has set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed fromserviceonthegroundthatalleged misconductoftheconductorwasattempt to cause loss of Rs.65/ to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs.2.35 but recovering@Rs.5.35perheadandalso bymakingentryinthewaybillashaving received the amount of Rs.2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs.2.85. TheCourtheldthatitwasnot possible to say that Corporation removingtheconductorfromservicehas imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in [PRECEDENT],thisCourtconsideredthecase of a workman who was working as a DiaryHelpercumCleanerforcollecting the milk from various centres and was charged for the misconduct that he inflatedthequantumofmilksuppliesin milkcentresandalsoinflatedthequality offatcontentswheretherewerelessfat contents.TheCourtheldthat"inviewof proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that Management has lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour [CASE NUMBER] 8/16 Court rightly declined to exercise the powerunderSection11AoftheI.D.Act tograntreliefwithminorpenalty. 7.Inviewoftheaforesaidsettledlegal position,theHighCourtmateriallyerred inconfirmingthedirectionsgivenbythe Labour Court in reinstating the respondent - workmen with 25% back wages. For giving the aforesaid directions,theLabourCourtconsidered thatthereisnoevidenceregardingpast misconduct by the employees and, therefore, it can be observed that they have rendered several years of service withoutanyblemishandtosomeextent, there was lapse on the part of the management. 8.Incaseofprovedmisappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretionoftheemployertoconsiderthe same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penaltyimposedbytheemployerinsuch cases." 14. In [PRECEDENT], the allegations against the claimant were of misappropriation of sum of Rs.1548.78p by falsifyingtheaccounts. TheApexCourtruledthatinacaseof suchnature-indeed,incasesinvolvingcorruptiontherecannotbe any punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such [CASE NUMBER] 9/16 casesistotallyuncalledforandopposedtothepublicinterest.The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriationthatisrelevant. 15. In [PRECEDENT]In thewaybill,hehadenteredashavingreceivedthesumofRs.2.35 fromeachofthem.TheApexCourtheldasunder: "4. Having regard to the findings that havebeenrecordedbytheLabourCourt, itisevidentthatthisisacasewherethe petitioner had tried to fabricate the record regarding recovery of fare to show that the passengers had travelled for a lesser distance from Khalilbad to Gorakhpur although they had actually travelledfromBastitoGorakhpur. The misconduct that was found established was thus serious in nature and the Labour Court has rightly upheld the punishmentofremovalfromservicethat wasimposedonthepetitioner.TheHigh Courtwasinerrorininterferingwiththe award of the Labour Court and in substituting the penalty of censure for removal from service on the view that therewasonlyanattempttocauselossof Rs.65totheCorporationandtheaction of the Corporation terminating the servicesofthepetitionerwasnotjustified [CASE NUMBER] 10/16 .
5.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioner hasinvitedourattentiontothedecisions [PRECEDENT] andhassubmittedthatinthefactsofthis casetheHighCourtwasrightintaking theviewthatthepenaltyofterminationof services was disproportionate to the misconduct found established. We are unabletoagree.Thefactsinthe cases aforementioned were very different and they can have no application to the present case. Having regard to the misconduct that has been found established against the petitioner, it is notpossibletosaythattheCorporation, inremovingthepetitionerfromservice, has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to the misconduct. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the judgmentoftheHighCourt."
16. InRustom&HarnsbyLtd.Vs.T.B.Kadam,1976SCR(1) 119,theallegationsagainsttheworkmanwerethathehadremoved theFluroscentTubefromtheguardroomandwascaughtwhenhe wascarryingawayfromthefactory.TheApexCourtupheldthe punishmentofthedismissal.
17. InDepotManager,A.P.S.R.T.CVs.[ENTITY] Prasad,(2007)1SCC222,theallegationagainsttheworkmanwas thathehadstolenanewtubeof900X20size.Followingwasheld bytheApexCourt: "19.LearnedJudgesoftheHighCourt havealsofailedtoappreciatethatonce an employee lost the confidence of employer,itwouldnotbesafeandinthe interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in the service. The punishment,imposedbythemanagement in the facts and circumstances of the case,isnotdisproportionateandthatthe punishmentofremovalfromserviceisthe justandreasonableandproportionateto theprovedmisconduct. Inourview,the theft committed by the respondent amountstomisconductand,therefore,we havenohesitationtosetasidetheorders passedbythelearnedSingleJudgeand alsooftheDivisionBenchandrestorethe orderofremovaloftherespondentfrom service. When the Labour Court has provedthecharge,nointerferencebythe learnedSingleJudgeorbytheDivision BenchoftheHighCourtwascalledfor. Intheinstantcase,thejurisdictionvested withtheLabourCourthasbeenexercised judiciouslyandfairly.Inouropinion,the conclusionarrivedatbytheHighCourt in orderingreinstatement;continuityof service was shockingly disproportionate tothenatureofchargesalreadyproved whichisinthenatureoftheft.
It is also not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinioninplaceoftheonearrivedatthe domesticTribunal. Inthe instantcase, theopinionarrivedatbytheCorporation wasrightlyacceptedbytheTribunalbut notbytheCourt.We,therefore,holdthat theorderofreinstatementpassedbythe SingleJudgeandtheDivisionBenchof theHighCourtiscontrarytothelawon thebasisofacatenaofdecisionsofthis Court. Insuchcases,thereisnoplace forgenerosityorsympathyonthepartof the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal whichcannotbejustified.Similarly,the HighCourtcanmodifythepunishmentin exerciseofitsjurisdictionunderArticle 226oftheConstitutiononlywhenitfinds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the chargesproved Interferingthereforewiththequantumof punishment of the respondent herein, is not called for. In our opinion, the respondenthasnolegalrighttocontinue intheCorporation.AsheldbythisCourt, inacatenaofjudgmentsthatthelossof confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and that sympathy and generosity cannot be a factorwhichispermissibleinlawinsuch matters. When the employee is found guiltyortheft,thereisnothingwrongin the Corporation losing confidence or faithinsuchanemployeeandawarding punishment of removal. In such cases, thereisnoplaceofgenerosityorplaceof sympathy on the part of the judicial forumsandinterferingwiththequantum ofpunishment."
18. Onthesmallamountofstolenproperty,theHon'bleMadras High Court held following in [PRECEDENT] "20.Aspointedoutbythecounselforthe petitioner, this Court on several occasions would hold that the property stolenmaybesmallorlargebutitisthe actoftheftthatisrelevantforimposing penaltyandthatanysympathyshownin suchcasesistotallyuncalledforandis opposedtopublicinterest.
21.The workman was employed in the petitionercompany,wheretheconfidence of the customers is paramount for the success of the business and the same cannot be disputed. The effect of the continuation of employment of such person, who had lost the confidence of theemployerwillbeveryserious. The reinstatement of the persons like the second respondent, who had patently dupedhisemployerbycommittingtheft of the film entrusted by the customers would certainly harm the reputation of thepetitionercompany.
23. In my view the act of the theft committedbythesecondrespondentisa grave misconduct and when the said misconductisgraveinnature,thegravity of the said act warrants the penalty of dismissal.
24.When a person is proved to have committed theft of the property of the company showing his lack of integrity anddishonesty,theTribunalortheCourt cannot direct the company to reinstate that workman, as it would amount to doinginjusticetotheinstitutionlikethe petitioner company which has got a reputation."
19. Theallegationsagainsttheclaimantarethatfourpassengers hadhandedhimoverduefareofRs.48/.Theyhadboardedfrom KhairtoJattari. DuefareforonepassengerwasRs.12/andfor fourpassengers,itwasRs.48/.Theclaimanthadnotgiventickets tothem.Inthisway,hehadcausedwrongfulgaintohimselfand wrongfullosstothemanagement.
20. Inviewofabovediscussion,itisheldthatmanagementhad not committed any illegality or unjustifiably in terminating the serviceoftheclaimant. Thepunishmenthandeddowntohimis notdisproportionatetotheprovedmisconduct.
Relief:
21. The management's case is well covered by [PRECEDENT] GopalShuklaCANo.2038/12, decidedbytheApexCourton 01.09.2015. In the cited case, the allegations against the bus conductor that 25 passengers were without tickets, were found proved.TheApexCourtheldthathehadcausedfinanciallossto thecorporationdespitethefactthathewasholdingpostoftrust.In thatcapacity,hewasexpectedtobehavewithdiscipline,loyalty andalsotomaintainfiscalsanctity.TheApexCourtheldthathe did not deserve leniency. Order of dismissal from service was upheld.Tothesameeffectarethefactsofthecaseinhand.
22. Inviewofabovediscussion,itisheldthatclaimantisnot entitledtoanyrelief.Statementofclaimisdismissed.Partiesto beartheirowncosts.Referenceisansweredaccordingly.Awardis passedaccordingly.
23. Therequisitenumberofcopiesoftheawardbesenttothe Govt.ofNCTofDelhiforitspublication. Filebeconsignedto RecordRoom.
DictatedtotheSteno&announced(UMEDSINGHGREWAL) intheopenCourton20.08.2016.POLCXVII/KKD,DELHI.