http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5094 of 2006

PETITIONER: The Managing Director The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation

RESPONDENT: K. Murti

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (@ SLP(C) No. 16719 of 2005)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.         Leave granted.           The sole respondent was served through the Court on  10.1.2005.  However, nobody has appeared for the  respondent.  We heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned  counsel appearing for the appellant-Management.         This appeal is directed against the final order dated  25.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at  Bangalore in Writ Appeal no.1565 of 2004, wherein Division  Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal filed by the  appellant herein and ordered accordingly.  This Court on  22.8.2005 issued notice to the sole respondent and interim  stay was granted in the meantime.  The respondent was in  the employment of the appellant Corporation as a badli  conductor .  During his course of employment as badli  conductor between the period from 1992 to 1995, he had  an unedifying history of misconduct and had been  punished by imposing fine.  While he was conducting the  bus on 12.8.1992, the said bus came to be checked by the  checking squad at stage no.2 and it was noticed that the  respondent had failed to issue tickets  to 6 passengers  despite collection of money,  failed to issue tickets to 4  passengers who were travelling from Sanganakal to KEB,  Bellary and had not collected the requisite fare.  The  respondent had closed the stage no.3 by keeping single digit  blank in respect of Rs.1.25 denomination with an intention  to re-issue the said denomination tickets in the next trip  and the respondent had closed the CWP against the stage  no.2 except the Rs.1.75 denomination.  The Disciplinary  authority directed holding of an enquiry into the articles of  charge in terms of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971  by appointing an Inquiry Officer.  The Inquiry Officer after  having issued notices to both the parties conducted a  detailed enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against  the respondent.  The proceedings were conducted following  the mandatory provisions of the Corporation C & D  Regulations, 1971 and affording adequate opportunity to  the delinquent workman to defend his case.  The  Disciplinary Authority, on re-appraisal of the connected  records, came to the conclusion as of the Inquiry Officer  and looking at the nature of the offence and its result  passed an order on 18.5.1998 removing the name of the  respondent from the list of badli conductors.

       Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under  section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka  Amendment) Act, 1947 challenging the legality and  correctness of the dismissal order passed against him on  18.5.1998.  The Labour Court after issuing process to the  parties concerned by its order dated 2.1.2002 passed an  order holding that the enquiry held was fair and proper.   After passing of the preliminary order on issue no.1, i.e.  whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent  against the claimant is fair and proper, the matter was  posted for recording of evidence.  The respondent, however,  failed to appear before the Court and accordingly the  evidence was taken as closed.  Later after hearing the  arguments, instead of dismissing the petition, vide order  dated 25.3.2003 the Labour Court set aside the termination  order dated 18.5.1998 and directed the appellant- Management to take the respondent back on the list of  badli conductors.  However, the Labour Court held that the  respondent was not entitled for any back wages and  continuity of service.

       The appellant-Management aggrieved by the order passed  by the Labour Court, approached the High Court of  Karnataka by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and  227 of the Constitution of India and urged several grounds  for consideration.  The respondent-workman also  approached the High Court by filing writ petition.

       The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the  writ petition and thereby upheld the order passed by the  Labour Court.  The Management preferred writ appeal  no.1565 of 2004 and  urged several grounds for  consideration amongst others.  The Division Bench by a  common order dated 25.2.2005 rejected the writ appeal  filed by the Management and also by the respondent,  thereby confirmed the orders passed by the learned Single  Judge and the Labour Court.   Aggrieved by the said order,  the Management has come up on appeal before this Court.                  We have heard learned counsel appearing for the  appellant-Management and perused the records.  In our  opinion, the order passed by the High Court is erroneous on  the face of the record.  The High Court, in our opinion,  ought to have seen that the misconduct was duly  established in the enquiry and despite it, the Labour Court  had persuaded itself to reinstate the delinquent in service.   The learned Single Judge also confirmed the order passed  by the Labour Court.  In our opinion, the High Court was  not justified in altering the quantum of punishment when  the enquiry was held to be fair and proper, charge was  proved and no evidence was led before the Labour Court  while questioning the order of the Disciplinary Authority  dismissing the delinquent workman.  Likewise, the High  Court also failed to notice the order removing the name of  the respondent from the list of badli conductors.  The High  Court has also erred in taking note of the fact that the  punishment imposed on the delinquent official was not  shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct  proved against him coupled with his history and he being a  badli conductor.  In our opinion, the Division Bench have  erred in rejecting the plea of the Management that the  Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement of  the respondent as regular employee on the ground that  such a plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge  when as a matter of fact the plea had been taken both

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

before the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of the  High Court.            

       The learned counsel for the appellant, at the time of  hearing, placed strong reliance on the two decisions of this  Court, one reported in 2002 (10) SCC 330 (Regional  Manager, RSRTC versus Ghanshyam Sharma), which was  also a case of bus conductor carrying passengers without  issuing tickets.  This Court, in the above case, held that  carrying the passengers without tickets amounts to  dishonesty or grave negligence and for such  misconduct  punishment of removal from service is justified.  This Court  also further observed that the Labour Court was not  justified in directing the reinstatement with continuity of  service but without back wages.  This Court has also relied  upon a judgment reported in 2001 (2) SCC 574 (Karnataka  SRTC vs. B.S. Hullikatti).  In the said judgment, this Court  has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry  passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than  the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to  either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and  such conductors were not fit to be retained in service  because such inaction or action on the part of the  conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport  Corporation.  This Court has also observed that in cases  like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.   The learned counsel for the appellant also cited judgment  reported in 2006 (6) SCC 187 (Divisional Controller,  N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh).  In this case, this Court was  considering the case of misappropriation of a small amount  of State Road Transport Corporation’s fund by a conductor  and held it a grave act of misconduct, which resulted in  financial loss to the Corporation.  This Court also held that  punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the  Disciplinary Authority did not call for any interference by  the Labour Court or the High Court and hence the order of  reinstatement passed by the High Court was set aside.  This  Court also in a catena of decisions held that the Tribunal  should not sit in appeal over the decision of any employer  unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf.  This  Court also observed that the High Court gets jurisdiction to  interfere with the punishment in the exercise of its  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when  it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly  disproportionate to the charges proved.

       In the instant case, the position held by the employee  (conductor) is one of faith and trust.  A conductor holds the  post of trust.  A person guilty of breach of trust should be  imposed punishment of removal from service.  The  respondent’s conduct in not collecting the requisite fare at  the designated place from persons who had travelled were  in violation of various regulations contained in the  provisions of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971.                  The following judgments can be usefully referred to for the  above proposition.  They are: 1       V. Ramana vs. A.P. SRTC & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 338 2       Madhur Coats Ltd. vs. Madhan Kumar & Ors.,      2000 (85) FLR 933 Madras 3       Management of T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. vs. P.L.  Ramanathan & Anr., 2005 (107) FLR 714

       We, therefore, set aside the final order dated 25.2.2005

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

passed by the High Court of Karnataka  in Writ Appeal  No.1565 of 2004 and allow the appeal filed by the  Management.  The orders passed by the learned Single  Judge of the High Court and the Labour Court are also set  aside.  No costs.