C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 Date of Decision:08.09.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral) This petition has been moved by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as `the Corporation') under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for partly quashing the award dated 5.5.1987 (Annexure P.6). The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Joga Singh- respondent was engaged as Conductor on daily wages at the rate of Rs.6.70 per day with effect from 2.2.1977 till the regularisation of his appointment or on earlier orders, against suspension vacancy by the Corporation with a condition that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reason. On 1.7.1977, he was Conductor on Bus No.2906 on route No.79, Nurpur. During checking, three out of 54 passengers from whom he had collected fare were found travelling without tickets. The checking staff took three unpunched tickets No.3/F- 6798/88/89/045 from him. If the bus would not have been checked, the Corporation would have been in loss of Rs.1.80 including tax. On 7.7.1977, C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 -2- his services were dis-continued. On his demand notice, the dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labout Court, Bathinda. The following issues were farmed by the learned Labour Court:- (i) Whether the order of termination of service of the workman is justified? (ii) Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has posed a challenge to the award. As revealed by the record, the respondent- workman, Joga Singh did not file written statement to contest this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner eloquently urged that as would be apparent from Annexure P.1, the appointment letter, the respondent- workman was engaged on merely daily wages and his services were liable to be terminated without any notice or assigning reason and he indulged into the act of defrauding the Corporation within a very short span. A glance through Annexure P.5, the written statement filed by the Corporation would reveal that the services of the workman had been terminated as a result of major misconduct committed by him when he was duty on 1.7.1977 and he was warned five times and he was censured twice during short period of his service. He C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 -3- being a merely daily wager, the inquiry was not required to be conducted before his services were dispensed with. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has gravely erred in holding that the termination of service of the workman is clearly stigmatic and punitive. The order regarding termination of his service does not smack of any stigma. It is further argued that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in re: U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh Pal, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 108, the workman- respondent was disentitled to be allowed the continuity of service and that being so, the impugned award to this extent is liable to be reversed. In response, Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the Corporation did not demonstrate the alleged misconduct of the workman- respondent before the Labour Court and without holding any inquiry, his services were terminated. In these premises, no fault can be found with the impugned award vide which the continuity of service too has been allowed to the respondent- workman. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, the view I am inclined to take is that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court was not justified in allowing continuity of service to the respondent- workman for the discussion to follow hereunder. In re: Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, 2006 (5) Service Law Reporter 721, a bus conductor was charge-sheeted for his misconduct and dismissed from service after inquiry. There were as many as four charges against the bus conductor. The fourth charge which was found proved against him was that on 28.12.1990 after completion of his duties at about 14 hours, the K.S.R.T.C cash held by him was checked C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 -4- and found Rs.360.95 as short besides being found in drunken condition. The Supreme Court held that even short remittance of money amounted to misconduct, the reinstatement should not have been awarded. The respondent had no legal right to continue in service. The Corporation was directed to discharge him from service. Coming to the facts of the instant case, admittedly, the respondent- workman has been reinstated. The Corporation has posed a challenge to the impugned award to the extent that the continuity of service to the respondent- workman should have not been allowed by the Labour Court. Ostensibly, the Corporation has not impugned the reinstatement of the respondent- workman. If the matter is looked in the background of H. Amaresh's case (supra), the respondent- workman should have not been reinstated. Keeping in view the conduct of the respondent- workman, the continuity of service should have not been extended to him. It can be culled out from the language of Annexure P.3, termination order that it does not speak of misconduct. It is apparent on the face of this order that it is not stigmatic and punitive. It is thus ununderstandable as to how the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the workman is clearly stigmatic and punitive. If it had been mentioned in this order that his services are being terminated because of the embezzlement committed by him, perhaps in that eventuality he would have been justified to hold so. In re: Suresh Pal (supra), the respondent- workman was appointed as a Conductor on 24.7.1988. While he was carrying the bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 28.7.1989 from Uttarkashi to Chamoli, the bus was suddenly checked and it was found that 20 passengers were travelling C.W.P. No.8840 of 1987 -5- without ticket in the bus. Charge-sheet was served on him for misconduct. After holding a domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service. It was observed by the Apex Court that such an act amounted to serious misconduct, moreso, when committed in the very first year of service. Here in this case too, such act has been committed in the very first year of the service. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the respondent- workman is not entitled to continuity of service. Sequelly, this petition is accepted setting aside the impugned part of the award dated 5.5.1987 (Annexure P.6). The respondent- workman shall be deemed to be a fresh appointee from the date he was reinstated. Disposed of accordingly. September 08, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE