TD o.P.l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WMTPETITIONNO. OF 2004 PETITIONER ANUPRAM PATEL, S/0 LATE SHRI GANDfflRAM PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, R/0 CIVIL LINES, BALODABAZAR, DISTRICT RAIPUR, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^•^.i' ^'•-"\^"" .••''. r~)!ft^ . •''' ^^^x^ -a' <,^°i"a\: y .0 1. (CHHATTISGARH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RAIPUR), .•'"', ... NOW CHHATTISGARH BSTFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH : THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, (TRANSPORT SECTION), C.I.D.C., RAIPUR, (C.G.). •^i?. assss 2. THE INDUSTRIAL COURT, RAIPUR,THROUGH: THE REGISTRAR. RAIPUR, (C.G.). 3. THE LABOUR COURT, RAIPUR, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22T0F THE CONSTITUTION QFJNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ^PPROPMATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC, OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. • -~'s. Ac^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2004 Pctitioner Anupram Patel Versus Respondents ChJiattisgarh State Road Transport Corporation, Raipur & others. Post for oider on / ') ^pril, 2006. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ^^"sgas-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2004 Petitioner Auupram Patel Vcrsus Respondents Chhatdsgarh State Road Transport Corporation, Raipur & others. Siai^e Bench ; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. AgaUiotri. Shri Rajesh Paadey, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Pradeep Saxena, counsel for Respondent No. 1. •i'^^y:y ORDBR ( April, 2006) The foUowmg order oftfae Court was passed by Satish K. Aguihotri, J. The petitioner has filed thia petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India chaBengmg fhe order dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure P/l) passed by tfae Industrial Court, CUhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal No. 448/M.P.I.R./91. The facts iu nutsheU, necessaiy for disposal of tfais petition, are fhat fhe petitroner/employee (Anupram Pate^ had filed an appUcation before fhc Labour Coiirt Raipur under Section 31(3) read wifh Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960 (for short 'the Act 1960^, submitting that he was working on the post of Conductor in fhe Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation/Respondent No.l/employer fix>m fhe year 1984. His servicea were temuiiated vide order dated 7.12.1990. Before terminating his semces departmental enquiiy was conducted but he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case in accordance wifh fhe principles of natural justice. He SS' was not afForded the opportunily to get the independent witness examined. No evidence was produced with regard to fhe factiial position of the incident, and fhe iiaposed punislunent of removal from service is excessive and harsh. The charge agamst the petitioner was that on 4.9.1990 vehicte No 6848 was iaspected by the ffying squad of head quarter Bhopal at 10.20 a.m. on fhe way of Kharara to Baloda Bazar. At fhat tiine out of 44 passengers, 22 passcngers were found sitting ia the bus wifhout ticket. The fare chai^es were already obtained fium fhcm by the petitioner, who was on duly in the bus as Conductor. The Inspectors of fhe Qying squad executed the inspection note and prepared panchnajna. The respoadent fBed written statement before the Labour Court in which it was submitted that fuB opporttmity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case, he deliberatefy absented huaself firom the enquiiy and ftie ex-parte pnx;eeding was conducted against fhe petitioner aad in the departniental enquuy he was found gtulty ofthe charge ofruisconduct The Labour Court vide order dated 24.7.1991(Annexure P/3) passed in Case No. 6/M.P.I.R./91 caine to the conclusion that no independent witness was examined, nor the collection. book of the vehicle No. 7808 was produced, wherefioni some ofthe passengers were shifled to fhe vehick No. 6848, which was inspected by the inspectors of the flying squad and deficiency of not issuing tickets was found. In view of that fhe Labour Court found that the findiags were perverse being wifhout any evidence. Accordingly the direction to reiastate the petitioner in service without back w^es was passed. 6. The respondent prcferred au appeal under Section 65 ofthe Act, 1960 before ttie Industrial Court, Raipiir, chaUenging the order dated 24.7.1991. The appellate Court aUowed the appeal vide order dated 3.3.2004 passed in Appeal No. 448/M.P.I.R./91 and set aside the order dated 24.7.1991 passed by the Labour Court. 7. The petitioner has preferrcd this petition challengiag the order dated 24.7.1991 passed by the Industrial Court. 8, I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and perused fhe plcadings and records appeaded to the pctition. 9. The Industrial Court in appeal cousidered aU the facts and canie to fhe conclusion that 22 passengers traveling in the vehicle under consaleratfon were without tickets. The petitioner has aot attempted to prove as-to why 22 passengers were traveUiag without tickets. Bven if after inspection by fhe Inspectors, the petitioner or any other Conductor of vehicle No. 7808 had deposited the entire amoiint of fare of 44 passengers traveUing in the bus, the petitioner could not be exonerated from. the misconduct by not issuing tickets afler coUectuig bus fare j5x>ia the teaveUing passengers. The petitioner h^ no explanation to fhe effect fhat why aU the 22 passengers were traveUuig wifhout pniper tickets. The Industrial Court has held fhat fhe burden of proof is on the delinqueat employee, not on fhe passcngers. During the inspection, a proper panchnama was prepared in presence of fhe independent witacsses and there is no question of doubting fhe authenticity of the Panchnama aad the inspection report. 10. The submission of thc petitioner that fhe Industdal Court had passed the order ia fhe absence of the petitioner employee docs 11. not cause aay prejudice to the case of the petitioner. Accordiagly, this contention of leamed coimsel for the petitioner is unsustainabk. The scopc of revtew is liinited aad the ladustrial Court has righfty dismissed the review vide order dated 7.4.2004 (Armexure P/2) on their being no ground for review of fhc earlier orderdated 3.3.2004. For fhe reasons stated above no procedural error or irregularily is found in the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court and the findings recoided by the Industrial Court is baaed on sufficient evidence. Hence.the petition is dismissed. No ordcr as to costs. Tb.akur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge