CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12581 OF 1993 ----- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- PARSURAM SINGH, son of late Sri Kishun Singh, resident of village Erka, P.S.Kutumba, Dist.Aurangabad-petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna 3.Bihar State Transport Corporation through the Managing Director, Paribahan Bhawan, Sultan Palace, Patna--------------------------------------respondents ----- For the Petitioner : Mr.D.N.PANDEY, Advocate For the Respondent Bihar State Road Transport Cornp.:Mr.P.K.Verma, Sr.Advocate ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ----- R.K.Datta,J. The matter was heard at length earlier when Mr.D.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued his case and Mr.P.K.Verma, learned Sr.Counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation had also argued at length. The matter was thereafter adjourned on the prayer of Mr.D.N.Pandey for his reply. Today when the matter is called out Mr.D.N.Pandey is not present. Since it has already been heard on merit at length it is being disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 12.7.1993 so far as it relates to the petitioner passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna by which he has held that the punishment of dismissal/discharge of the services of the petitioner is justified and, accordingly, 2 he was not inclined to interfere with the punishment levied by the Management against him. 3. The Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training by its notification dated 17.7.1987 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, Patna :- “Whether the dismissal of Sarbashri Kedar Nath Verma, Krishna Chandra Prasad Singh, Tribhuwan Sharma, Ramdeo Singh, Md.Jahid, Bindeshwari Pandey, Ragho Mahton, Awadh Singh, Ramendra Singh, Arjun Singh, Sachidanand Singh, Parashuram Singh and Krishna Kumar Sudhansu is proper and justified? If not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.” 4. Earlier the petitioner had been dismissed from service by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The allegation against him was that while he was posted as a Conductor at Aurangabad he was conducting Bus No. 3209 Dehri-Daltonganj service on 20.4.1972 and the same was checked at 08.00 hours by Shri Sadashiv Prasad Singh, D.T.I., Daltonganj and out of 23 passengers traveling in the bus six were found as unbooked. The said six passengers complained to have paid their fare earlier to the conductor. The D.T.I. submitted his checking report to the Divisional Manager on the basis of which charges were frqmed and served upon the petitioner. The respondent Corporation held a domestic enquiry against the 3 petitioner workman in which the charges were alleged to have been proved against him and, accordingly, he was dismissed from service. 5. Before the Labour Court the Management was called upon to file the records of the domestic enquiry in respect of the petitioner, among others, failing which it would be presumed that there had been no domestic enquiry in his case and in such a situation the Management had to prove the charge of misconduct against him before the court. Since the Management failed to file the domestic enquiry records against the petitioner the Labour Court held that no enquiry had been conducted against him and directed the Management of the respondent Corporation to lead evidence to prove the charges of misconduct against him before the Labour Court itself. The Management examined several witnesses including the Traffic Inspector as M.W.5 who supported the allegation against the petitioner. It also filed several documents including checking report (Ext.1/C) and the charge sheet (Ext.2/F). The workman also examined himself as W.W.1 and denied the allegation made against him alleging that he has been falsely implicated in the case out of malice. 6. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had taken the plea of victimization 4 only to save his skin and there was nothing to disbelieve the version of the checking officer M.W.5 and, accordingly, found and held that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner was fully proved. On the basis of the same the Labour Court further came to the conclusion that the petitioner by dishonestly not issuing tickets and allowing the unbooked passengers to travel by the Bus which he was conducting had caused financial loss to the Management for which he observed that the punishment of dismissal/discharge of the petitioner was quite justified and was not inclined to interfere with the punishment levied by the Management against him. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court had called for the enquiry report and the other records of the enquiry proceedings which the Management failed to produce before him and thus adverse inference should have been drawn against the Management for such non-production. It is further contended that since the statements of the passengers were not produced nor the six passengers were examined, in the said circumstances the said issue could not have been decided against the petitioner. It is also urged that the counterfoil of the ticket was not produced by the Management and thus it could 5 not be said that the said six passengers were traveling without any ticket. 8. Learned counsel also refers to the order passed by the Presiding Officer earlier in the matter about the attitude of the Management in not complying with the order regarding filing of the records of the enquiry proceedings and thus, according to him, the Labour Court ought not to have decided against the petitioner and for all these reasons the award is fit to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the Bihar Road Transport Corporation, on the other hand, submits that non-production of the records of the domestic enquiry or the fairness of the same is of no relevance since the Labour Court on account of the said action came to the conclusion that the Management had failed to prove the fairness of domestic enquiry and, accordingly, the Management was given opportunity to prove its case before the Labour Court itself. It is submitted that under the said circumstances whatever transpired during the domestic enquiry had no value as the charges had to be proved afresh before the Labour Court and the Management had succeeded in proving the same. The Management had proved the charge of misconduct and, thus, according to learned counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the Management 6 for non-production of the records of the domestic enquiry. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in writ proceedings the findings of the Labour Court cannot be reexamined as though by a court of appeal and the only thing has to be seen is whether there was some material before the Labour Court to come to its conclusion and that the findings recorded by it are not perverse. It is urged by him that sufficient materials have been produced by the Management and it cannot be held that the findings recorded by it are perverse on the basis of the evidence before it. 11. On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Road Transport Corporation. In writ jurisdiction the Court is only concerned not with the actual decision but with the decision making process. In the course of the proceedings the Labour Court has reached certain conclusions which are based upon the evidence and materials on the record and, thus, it is not for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own finding. Even if this Court considers that another view can be taken on the same evidence, the same would not be 7 a ground for interfering with the findings of the Labour Court. 12. On a consideration of the award I find that the Labour Court has dealt with the entire case of the petitioner including the evidences that have been produced by both the sides and after considering the same, has arrived at the conclusion against the petitioner regarding misconduct and found the punishment of dismissal as justified. This Court does not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Labour Court nor does it find that the conclusions arrived at are based upon no material or are perverse. 13. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT 22nd of June, 2010 Spal/N.A.F.R.