http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2340 1999         Appeal (civil)  2342    1999

PETITIONER: THE MANAGEMENT OF SHRI GANAPATI BUS SERVICE THIRUNELVELI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/12/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     These Appeals are against a common Judgment dated 30th June,  1998,  where  under  three  appeals  were  dismissed. Briefly  stated the facts are as follows:  The Appellant has terminated  the services of three of its Conductors.   Those Conductors  had challenged the termination before the Labour Court.  The Labour Court had, by three Awards, set aside the termination   of   all  the   three  workmen  and   directed reinstatement  in  all the three cases.  The  Appellant  had then filed three Writ Petitions in the High Court of Madras. All  those  Writ Petitions came to be dismissed by a  common Judgment  dated 20th June, 1997.  Against that Judgment  the Appellant  had  filed three Appeals which were dismissed  by the  impugned Judgment dated 30th June, 1998.  The concerned Respondents  in Civil Appeal No.  2340 and 2341 of 1999 have not  appeared  before  this Court even though  served.   The Respondent  in Civil Appeal No.  2342 of 1999 is represented by Mrs.  S.  Usha Reddy.  We have heard the parties, perused the  Awards and the Judgment of the Single Judge as well  as the  Division Bench.  Mr.  Iyer took us through the Counters filed  by  the Appellant in all the three cases and  pointed out that in all those Counters the Appellant had prayed that the  validity  of  the  domestic   enquiry  be  tried  as  a preliminary  issue and in case it was held that the  enquiry was not valid and proper the Respondents may be permitted to lead  evidence  to  substantiate  their  contention  on  the charges  framed against the Appellants.  He submitted  that, therefore,  the  question whether the enquiry was valid  and proper  should  have been tried as a preliminary  issue  and thereafter   the  Appellant  should   have  been  given   an opportunity   of  leading  evidence.   In  support  of   his submission  he  has relied upon an authority in the case  of Shankar Chakravarti v.  Britania Biscuit Co.  Ltd.  reported in  (1979)  3  SCC  371,  in which  it  was  held  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Management  must  seek  an opportunity to lead  evidence  by making  a  specific  request at an  appropriate  stage.   He submitted that such an opportunity having not been given the Awards  were wrong and the same should be set aside.  We see no substance in this submission.  In all the three cases the Labour  Court  had  found that the enquiry  was  proper  and valid.   It is for other reasons, set out hereinafter,  that the Labour Court had directed reinstatement.  In that event, in   all  the  three  cases   the  Appellants  being   given opportunity to lead evidence after such a finding before the Labour Court did not arise.  In our view, whether or not the enquiry  was  valid  and  proper   though  not  tried  as  a preliminary  issue has not prejudiced the Appellants in  any    manner.   If the answer to that question had been in  the negative,  perhaps  an  occasion  to  consider  the  arisen. question  raised  by the learned counsel would have  It  was next submitted that in all the three cases it has been found that the Conductors had not collected fares from passengers. It  was submitted that the Appellant had lost confidence  in these  Conductors  and  that, therefore, there could  be  no order  directing  reinstatement.  It was submitted that  for this  reason also there should have been no order  directing reinstatement.   To  understand this submission brief  facts need   to  be  noted.   In   the  first  case,  on  surprise inspections  on  2.8.1988 and 24.10.1988 it was  found  that only  one passenger had not been issued a ticket and on  the second  date  2  passengers did not have  tickets.   In  the second case, on surprise inspection on 2.1.1989 it was found that  all the passengers had been issued tickets.  However a small  medical box was being carried on the roof of the bus. Luggage  charges  had  not  been  recovered  for  that.   On 4.2.1989  it was found that a small boy of 12 years had been issued  a  half  ticket, instead of a full ticket.   In  the third  case,  all that had happened was that on 9.4.1989  on inspection  it  was found that a plaintain leaf  bundle  was being carried on the roof of the bus without luggage charges having  been  levied.  In the first case, the  Labour  Court came  to  the  conclusion  that there  had  been  sufficient punishment  inasmuch as during the period of suspension  pay had  not  been  paid.   The  Labour  Court  found  that  the punishment  of dismissal was disproportionate to the  charge inasmuch as the charge was only that there would have been a loss  of Rs.  4.80.  The Labour Court also found that before awarding  punishment of dismissal no show-cause-notice as to the  quantum of punishment had been issued to the Conductor. In the second case, on evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the medical box was in fact a very small box for which there could have been no luggage charges.  It also came  to the conclusion on evidence that the boy was only of 12 years of age and, therefore, he had rightly been issued a half  ticket.  In the third case, the Labour Court found  on evidence  that a plaintain leaf bundle could only be charged proved  it  had  more  than 400 leaves.  The  claim  of  the Conductor  was  that the plaintain leaf bundle did not  even have  100 leaves.  This was supported by the evidence of the passenger.  In the enquiry it had not been established as to how many leaves the bundle had.  The learned Single Judge of the  High  Court had agreed with the reasoning given by  the Labour  Court.   We also see no reason to take  a  different view.   In our view, neither the Awards nor the Judgment  of the  Single  Judge nor the Judgement of the  Division  Bench requires any interference.

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

     Accordingly,  these  Appeals stand  dismissed.   There will be no Order as to costs.@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ