IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14992 of 1993 Date of decision:21.12.2009 Director State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....Petitioner versus Sewa Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms.Sikha Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement with 50% back wages on the ground that the punishment of removal was grossly disproportionate, although it found that the enquiry into the alleged misconduct by the management had been fair and proper and the misconduct attributed to the workman had been established. The charge against the workman-conductor was that he had collected money from 8 passengers @ Rs.2.95 but he had not issued to them the tickets. The attempt by the workman was to state that some of the passengers had deliberately not purchased the tickets while sitting atop the bus. The driver of the bus was examined as a defence witness, but he also was reported to have not supported the story propounded by the workman. Civil Writ Petition No.14992 of 1993 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel appearing for the workman refers to a decision of this Court in State of Haryana and others Versus Bikar Singh and others-2002(1) RSJ 519, where this Court has held that if statement of passengers either before the domestic Tribunal or before the checking staff had not been made as regards payment of money and non- issuance of tickets, the statement of checking staff before the Enquiry Officer will only be in air and there could be no basis to show that the passengers had paid money but not issued with the tickets. The reliance on this judgment will be possible only in a case where it is established that there was no evidence at all before the domestic Tribunal that they had parted with the money but they had not been given the tickets. In this case, the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority refers to the fact that the Enquiry Officer had evidence before him through the ticket checking staff that 8 passengers had parted with the money, but they had not been issued tickets. If the enquiry was fair and proper, the Labour Court was still be entitled to consider the issue of the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The finding had been made in favour of the management and if it were to be contended on behalf of the workman that there was no evidence at all, the entire Enquiry Officer's report must have been placed before the Labour Court or at least before this Court. 3. The Enquiry Officer's report itself is not before me, but the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority states that the Enquiry Officer had considered the evidence which had been given before him to find that the Conductor had deliberately not issued tickets although he Civil Writ Petition No.14992 of 1993 - 3 - had collected the money. If there was evidence before the Enquiry Officer about the collection of monies from the passengers, but the tickets alone had not been issued, the finding entered by the Enquiry Officer and considered by the disciplinary authority cannot be reopened. The Labour Court had also specifically held that nothing was brought on record to show that the enquiry had not been fair and proper. The order of punishment alone was interfered with by substituting it 50% wages and providing for reinstatement into service instead of dismissal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that if the enquiry had been fair and proper and the misconduct attributed to the workman had also been taken as established, the Court did not have the power under Section 11-A to interfere with the punishment, for, the misconduct attributed is embezzlement where the amount involved is invariably irrelevant. The discretion which the Labour Court exercised by invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was clearly wrong, when the misconduct of embezzlement was found as established. The interference in the punishment was uncalled for. 5. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the award had been stayed and the workman had not been taken back in service. The workman cannot have any remedy before this Court and the award is set aside and the order of dismissal made by the disciplinary authority is restored. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. 21.12.2009 (K.KANNAN) sanjeev JUDGE