1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: O R D E R :: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4268/1996 R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Vs. Dau Lal Vaishnav & Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 30.8.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. BHANWAROO KHAN, J. Mr. Bagh Singh Bhati,for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the award dated 26.6.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.101/1990 whereby the Labour Court, Jodhpur after hearing both the parties set-aside the termination order of workman-Daulal and directed to reinstate the same. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent-workman, who happens to be a Conductor, was initially appointed on 21.10.1983 on daily-wages basis. On 23.4.1984, the respondent-workman was discharging the duties of Conductor, his bus was checked by the officials of the petitioner and found one passenger travelling without ticket and the remark was made to that effect. The name of the workman was struck off from the roll of the Conductors w.e.f. 2 24.4.1984 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order. Again on 23.5.1984, he was appointed as Conductor on same terms and conditions, but on 14.6.1984, again his bus was checked by the officials of the petitioner and two passengers out of 15 passengers were found travelling without ticket. Again his name was struck off w.e.f. 15.6.1984. On a representation being made, the Divisional Manager ordered to conduct the enquiry of misconduct. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and found that the respondent-workman is guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer submitted a negative report to the Government and ultimately, matter was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. The Labour Court, Jodhpur after hearing both the parties set-aside the termination order and directed to reinstate the same. The Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter) permitted the parties to adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations of misconduct and after examining the same reached to the conclusion that the allegations of misconduct are well founded and same stood proved, but looking to the meagre amount of remittance, the penalty imposed was found to be 3 harshed. Hence, the Labour Court given the award of reinstatement. Aggrieved against the award of reinstatement, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The respondents notwithstanding the services of notice failed to put in their appearance. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. While giving challenge to the award impugned it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-workman Conductor was found guilty for serious allegation not once but twice and the misconduct, which was initially found well proved against the workman, but second chance was given to him. The respondent-workman never improved and second time also in his bus passengers travelling without tickets were found on being checked. So the respondent-workman Conductor was in the habit of misappropriating the funds of the petitioner. The Labour Court was not justified in giving the award for reinstatement as the misconduct is well proved. From perusal of the award impugned it is apparent that the learned Labour Court on the basis of evidence available on record found the respondent- workman guilty for the misconduct alleged and that is quite serious misappropriation of the funds of the 4 Corporation. The disciplinary authority after finding the allegations proved did not think it proper to reinstate him in the Corporation. Learned counsel pleaded that the Labour Court without looking to the gravity of the charge interfered with the quantum of punishment. Of course, it is true that under Section 11A of the Act of 1947, Labour Court can modify the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, but the said power should be exercised cautiously and in consonance with the gravity of the charge. Here the charge against the respondent- workman Conductor is not issuing tickets to their passengers travelling in the bus and this happened twice, which amounts to a serious misconduct on the part of the respondent-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4903 and Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H.Amaresh, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3701, in both the cited judgments it has been categorically mentioned that misappropriation of fund is a grave misconduct and such misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. Even the amount pilfered 5 may be petty one but question of faith and trust if shaken by the workman Conductor then no sympathy can be shown or given to the respondent-workman. In the instant case on being checked twice, the officials of the petitioner found passengers travelling without tickets. The relation between petitioner and respondent-workman Conductor is of faith or trust, which if once shaken can not be restored. The proliferation of misappropriation of the amount is a gravity of misconduct and no sympathy whatsoever should have been shown by the Labour Court towards the respondent-workman, who was found misappropriating the funds of the Corporation. In such circumstances, the only remedy available is of removal from service, which was done by the petitioner after holding an enquiry. There is no occasion for the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent-workman, so the award of reinstating the respondent-workman cannot be sustained in the light of the decided judgments. In view of this, the writ petition deserves to be accepted and same is, therefore, allowed. The award impugned dated 26.6.1996 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. (BHANWAROO KHAN)J. rm/