IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3342 OF 1989. Date of Decision : January 22, 2009. Malkiat Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus The People Bus Service (P) Limited, Muktsar, ....... Respondents. District Faridkot, and another. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In this writ petition, the award dated 04.05.1988 (Annexure-P-3) has been put to challenge vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman holding the termination of the petitioner- workman justified and in order. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the petitioner- workman is a Bus Conductor who was in employment with the respondent No. 1 and his services were illegally terminated on 15.01.1985. He submits that the checking staff had checked the bus being conducted by the petitioner-workman on 11.01.1985 and his confessional statement was recorded. Thereafter on 15.01.1985, the petitioner-workman again made a confessional statement and apologised for his fault but the said apology was not accepted by the respondent No. 1 and his services were accordingly C.W.P. No. 3342 of 1989. terminated. He submits that as per the allegations which have been levelled against the workman are that during the checking of bus on 11.01.1985, four passengers from Hamirgarh to Bhaga were going who were charged fare but were not issued tickets. Similarly, three passengers from Jalal to Bhaga were going, fare was charged but no tickets were issued and one passenger from Dayalpura to Bhaga was charged fare but no ticket was issued. He submits that it is submitted by the petitioner that the said confessional statements of allegations against him were not voluntarily submitted but were due to coercion. He further submits that signatures on blank vouchers were taken from the petitioner-workman on the date his services were terminated. He on these basis submits that the order of termination is bad. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 has taken a stand before the Labour Court that the workman has abandoned the job. It has further been pleaded that in view of the apology being rejected by the employer, the workman has voluntarily abandoned the job. As regards the admission of guilt, confession and the apology is concerned, the said documents have been placed on record as Ex. M/10 and Ex. M/11 respectively. On the basis of the evidence produced by the respective parties, the Court had not accepted the submissions of the petitioner- workman and accordingly rejected his claim. Counsel for the petitioner-workman has vehemently argued that the confession not being voluntarily, the petitioner-workman should have been given an opportunity to substantiate his claim regarding voluntary submission, apology and confession. Once, it is found that the termination of his services were there and that too for mis-conduct, an -2- C.W.P. No. 3342 of 1989. inquiry was required to be held wherein he would have been given an opportunity to justify his stand and further it was for the respondent- management to prove the allegations against him. He further submits that the amount of fare which was embezzled by the petitioner -workman has not been mentioned in Ex. M/10 and assuming the same was correct, it would have been a small amount, and therefore, a lenient view should be taken by the Court and authority under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act should have been exercised for reducing his punishment from dismissal to some other appropriate punishment. He relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Corporation and others Versus Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, 2000(3) S.C.C. 450. Reliance has further been made on the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Kalga Singh, 1997(2) S.C.T. 511. He relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, 1992(1) S.C.T. 166, to contend that when the employee disputes regarding confessional statement, the termination order cannot be passed on the basis of such statement unless the employee is given appropriate opportunity to explain his position and procedure for holding proper inquiry for going into it, would be essential. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner-workman and have gone through the award dated 04.05.1988 (Annexure-P-3). There are two confessional statements by the petitioner-workman, one is dated 11.01.1985 which is on the way bill which is Ex. M.10. The second confessional statement made by him on 15.01.1985 which is Ex. M/11. In the light of the two -3- C.W.P. No. 3342 of 1989. confessional statements and that too on two different dates and two different occasions, it cannot be said that the confessional statements put forth by the petitioner-workman was not voluntarily. The submission as put forth by counsel for the petitioner-workman that these statements were not voluntarily, cannot be accepted on the ground that (i) the first statement was recorded on the way bill and during the course of travel by the checking staff on 11.08.1985 and (ii) the confessional statement which he had made to his employer on 15.01.1985. That being the position, the submissions as put forth by counsel for the petitioner-workman deserve to be rejected, and therefore, the Judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash (supra), would be of no help to the petitioner-workman as this retraction from the statement of apology is an afterthought. The other contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman that the Labour Court should have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to interfere on the question of quantum of sentence by changing the order of dismissal to some lesser punishment, can also not be accepted for the simple reason that a workman who is dealing with money and is a conductor, this appointment is based on faith and confidence of the employer, in case the same is lost, then a lesser punishment would rather than being in the interest of justice, would be doing injustice to an employer. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. The contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman that the respondent has said that the petitioner-workman has abandoned the job and then they have turned around and said that he has actually been terminated which is self contradictory. A perusal of the award would show that the stand of the respondent-management was that when the confession and -4- C.W.P. No. 3342 of 1989. apology was submitted on 11.01.1985 and 15.01.1985, the same was not accepted and was rather rejected by the respondent-management, the petitioner-workman has abandoned the job voluntarily. Therefore, the said submission can also not be accepted. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 22,2009. sjks. -5-