THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35412 OF 1998 Date: 01.02.2008 Between: P. Sudershan. … Petitioner and Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep., by Chairman-Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35412 OF 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D. No. 326 of 1989 dated 06.09.1990, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein, a Conductor with the APSRTC, was issued a charge memo wherein he was alleged to have 1). violated the rule of issue and start; 2). failed to collect fare and issue tickets to six passengers traveling from Jagtial to Laxmipur X- road i.e., stage No. 1 to ½; 3). failed to collect fares and issue tickets to 21 passengers traveling from Jagitial to Laxmipur stage No. 1 to 3 and 4). worked without MTD 141. An enquiry was held and thereafter the petitioner was imposed the punishment for removal from service questioning which he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court, Exs.M-1 to M-15 were marked on behalf of the Management. The Labour Court noted that the petitioner was conducting the bus on 16.11.1984 from Jagitial to Laxmipur, that a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No. ½ at the outskirts of Jagitial, according to the petitioner, and at Laxmipur X-roads, according to the respondent- management. The Labour Court noted that the explanation offered by the petitioner was under Ex.M-2 wherein the passengers’ statement were also recorded, that the statement of the passengers was in support of charges 2 and 3, that the petitioner in the spot explanation under Ex.M-2 had stated that, instead of doing Raikal trip, he was asked to do Laxmipur trip since there were a number of passengers bound to Laxmipur, that due to the pressure given by the passengers he had started the bus and was issuing tickets when the bus was running, that he had stopped the bus at the outskirts or just after the village border for completing the issuance of tickets and that some of the passengers, with the intention to go away by walk, had got down from the bus when the check was conducted and that these passengers had not paid the fares. The Labour Court relied on Ex.M-4 i.e., the check sheet which showed that there were only 42 passengers in the bus in all including 27 ticketless passengers. The Labour Court held that the petitioner had issued tickets only to 15 passengers out of thee total 42 passengers, that the passengers under charge No.2, who were 6 in number, were individuals who were found alighting at the time of the check at stage No. ½, that the passengers under charge No. 3, who were 21 in number in batches and individuals, had boarded the bus at stage No.1 and were proceeding to Laxmipuram stage No.3 from whom also the petitioner had neither collected the fare nor had he issued tickets. The Labour Court was of the view that there was no reason why the petitioner should not have collected the fare and issued tickets from all these passengers at the place of their boarding itself i.e., at stage No.1 and then only started the bus. The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner had not observed the rule of issue and start. The labour Court found the explanation offered by the petitioner for not observing the rule neither satisfactory nor plausible and held that the petitioner had acted in gross dereliction of his duties. The Labour Court was of the view that there were no extenuating or mitigating circumstances to take a different view of the matter or to impose a different punishment on the petitioner other than the one given by the respondent-management. An award was passed dismissing the I.D. Sri K. Phani Raj, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would make submissions on the merits of the dispute. Learned Counsel would contend that the Labour Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, that it had not examined the proportionality of punishment and, since the petitioner had no malafide intention in not issuing tickets nor were there any allegations of corruption against him, he ought not to have been imposed the punishment of removal from service. Learned Counsel places reliance on The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. S.S. Rajan[1]. It is well settled that the Labour Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has the power to re-appreciate the evidence on record and to arrive at an independent conclusion whether the charges levelled against the delinquent-workman were established or not. Even in cases where the Labour Court is of the view that the charges are established, it can examine the nature and extent of punishment imposed for the proved acts of misconduct. While the Labour Court has the power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer, such interference cannot be as a matter of course or on grounds of misplaced sympathy. It is only when the punishment imposed is so grossly disproportionate as to necessitate interference would the Labour Court be justified in doing so. In the present case the charges held established against the petitioner is for not issuing tickets to 27 of the 42 passengers in the bus and not collecting fares from them. As the Labour Court disbelieved the petitioner’s explanation, it cannot be said that failure on the part of the petitioner to issue tickets and collect fares from 27 of the 42 passengers in the bus does not amount to gross dereliction in the discharge of his duties. In certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal/Labour Court nor would it re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal/Labour Court. Similarly the punishment, as substituted by the Labour Court, would necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when this Court is satisfied that the punishment as imposed is one which could not have been imposed at all or is one which shocks its conscience. While the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed for proved acts of misconduct is in the employer’s realm, the Labour Court has been conferred the power to interfere in certain situations. In the present case the Labour Court has chosen not to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer on the petitioner herein. Exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be perverse or as so unreasonable as to necessitate interference in certiorari proceedings. In S.S. Rajan1, this Court held that in cases where the Industrial Tribunal does not consider specifically whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate or not, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A, the High Court is entitled to scrutinize these aspects. In the present case the Labour Court has specifically held that there was no extenuating circumstances to give a different punishment to the petitioner other than the one given to him by the respondent-management. The Labour Court has examined the proportionality of punishment and has, in effect, held that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the charge held established. I see no reason to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ Date: 01.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] 1996(1) SLR 510