IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6660 of 1987 Date of decision:22.07.2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Limited, Patiala. ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ...Respondents 2. CWP No.16479 of 1999 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ....Petitioner versus Sukhminder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- 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. Both the writ petitions are taken up together since they involve common questions of facts and law. 2. The order impugned in the writ petition No.6660 of 1987 is an order directing reinstatement with cut in two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The award of the Labour Court came to be passed reappraising the punishment visited on the workman for an embezzlement of Rs.5.05 paise for collecting money from passengers as a conductor and not accounting for the same. The decision of the disciplinary authority to terminate his services was on an admission of Civil Writ Petition No.6660 of 1987 - 2 - guilt before the Enquiry Officer and he was ultimately terminated on the ground that even though the amount was small, it was a serious offence and his services could not be retained. 3. Even before the Labour Court, no attempt was made by the workman to either resile from the admission of guilt which was made before the Enquiry Officer or any attempt was even made to show that the enquiry was vitiated in any manner. The Labour Court, therefore, found that the enquiry had been properly conducted and that the decision finding him guilty was justified in view of unequivocal admission by the workman that he had made the embezzlement. 4. Adverting to the reference whether the order of termination of services was justified or not, the Labour Court reasoned that the termination of services of the workman who put nine years of service ought not to have been visited with a penalty of termination of the services for a minor case of fraud. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that it is not the amount of embezzlement that could ever be relevant, but it is the amount that followed such an act of a serious breach of trust that shall be dealt with seriously. The decision to terminate the services of such a conductor was according to him, perfectly justified. The learned counsel would also rely on a judgment of this Court in Ganga Ram Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation-1995(2) PLR 39, where the Court held that benefit under Section 11-A of the Act by the Labour Court ought not be extended to award a lesser punishment merely because the amount embezzled was small. In that case, incidentally the amount involved was Rs.17.55 only. Civil Writ Petition No.6660 of 1987 -3 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Versus Krishnan Behari- AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1249, held that in cases of misappropriation of public money, there could not be any other punishment than dismissal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that any sympathy shown in such cases would be totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that 'the amount misappropriated may be small or large, but it is the act of misappropriation which is relevant'. In that case, incidentally the amount that was misappropriated was Rs.1548.78. I agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the money involved in cases of misappropriation is seldom relevant and when there was a clear case of admission of guilt before the management and the management thought that it was serious enough to merit a punishment of dismissal, such a decision cannot be supplanted by a different reasoning either by the Labour Court or by this Court. There could be instances where the management makes a decision to take a lenient view on relevant consideration and if it be taken, still it would not be an occasion for interference by either of the Labour Court or by this Court. Loss of confidence of an employer is not irrelevant for consideration in matters of punishment and if it did occasion by the conduct of a conductor who had misappropriated the amount which had been paid by the passengers, it was serious enough and the Corporation was perfectly justified in taking the decision of termination of services. 5. The interference which was made in the quantum of punishment on a reasoning that the amount was small is, in my view, Civil Writ Petition No.6660 of 1987 - 4 - inappropriate and the award of the Labour Court is required to be set aside. The connected writ petition No.16479 of 1999 assails an order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) assuming the workman was entitled to be reinstated and that he was also entitled to the wages which had been denied to him. The claim under Section 33-C (2) was made during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court for reinstatement. In view of the decision taken by me that the decision of the Corporation to terminate the services could not be interfered, the adjudication regarding payment of wages becomes irrelevant. The workman shall not be entitled to any payment for the period which he claimed. The order of the Labour Court impugned in CWP No.16479 of 1999 is also set aside. Both the writ petitions are allowed but under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.07.2009 sanjeev