IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.  4520 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5120 of 2007)  

North West Karnataka Road Transport  Corpn. ...Appellant

Versus            

H.H. Pujar ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  in  the  writ  appeal

no.3830/2005 dismissing appeal against the order of learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17519/2000.  The writ appeal

was  dismissed  as  not  maintainable  and,  therefore,  the

challenge in the present is essential  to the order of learned

Single Judge.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent-Conductor  was  commissioning  as  such  in

Bus No. F-16 on 15.9.1993 when the bus was intercepted by

the checking staff. It was found that the respondent had not

issued  tickets  to  20  out  of  136  passengers.   Appellant

conducted  domestic  enquiry  which  found  him  guilty.

Consequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated

3.4.1995.  The same was challenged by the respondent before

the Labour Court  invoking Section 10(4-A)  of  the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act').  The Labour Court held

that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper on the basis of

the  memorandum filed  by  the  respondent  conceding  to  the

fairness of the domestic inquiry.  However, the Labour Court

set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of

respondent  with  full  back  wages,  continuity  of  service  and

2

other consequential benefits. The basis for this order was non-

checking of cash bag of the respondent and non-examination

of ticketless passengers. The order was challenged before the

High Court.  By order dated 21.10.2005, the learned Single

Judge held that the order was correct so far as setting aside

dismissal order is concerned, direction for reinstatement and

continuity of service and consequential benefits. However, the

direction  relating  to  back  wages  was  set  aside.   The  writ

appeal as noted above, was dismissed on the ground that the

same was not maintainable.

4. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant submitted that the primary reason indicated by the

Labour Court to hold that the order of dismissal was bad, was

the alleged non-examination of the passengers to whom the

respondent had not issued the tickets.  It also did not find any

substance in the stand of the Corporation that earlier also on

12 occasions for similar charges punishments were awarded

but  the  respondent  did  not  improve  his  conduct.  The  High

Court found that the conclusions of the Labour Court  were

3

correct.  It  was  noted  that  if  more  passengers  were  carried

within the permissible  limit,  it  was fault  of  the  Corporation

who did not took timely reformative and remedial measures.   

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the

view expressed by the High Court is clearly contrary to the law

laid down by this Court. Further, when the respondent himself

conceded to the fairness of the proceedings and the fact that

he  had  not  issued  tickets  to  twenty  passengers,  their  non-

examination is of no consequences.   

6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in

spite of service of notice.   

7. In  State of Haryana and Anr. v.  Rattan Singh (1977 (2)

SCC 491), it was, inter alia, held as follows:

“4. It  is  well  settled  that  in  a  domestic enquiry  the  strict  and  sophisticated  rules  of evidence  under the Indian Evidence Act may not  apply.  All  materials  which  are  logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There  is  no  allergy  to  hearsay  evidence

4

provided  it  has  reasonable  nexus  and credibility.  It  is  true  that  departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be  careful  in  evaluating  such  material  and should  not  glibly  swallow  what  is  strictly speaking  not  relevant  under  the  Indian Evidence  Act.  For  this  proposition  it  is  not necessary  to  cite  decisions  nor  text  books, although  we  have  been  taken  through  case- law and other authorities by counsel on both sides.  The  essence  of  a  judicial  approach  is objectivity,  exclusion  of  extraneous  materials or  considerations  and observance  of  rules  of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and  if  perversity  or  arbitrariness,  bias  or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the  conclusions  reached,  such  finding,  even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good.  However,  the  courts  below misdirected themselves,  perhaps,  in  insisting  that passengers  who  had  come  in  and  gone  out should  be  chased  and  brought  before  the tribunal  before  a  valid  finding  could  be recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which counsel for  the  respondent  referred,  based  upon certain  passages  from  American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid  requirement.  The  simple  point  is,  was there  some evidence or was there  no evidence —  not  in  the  sense  of  the  technical  rules governing regular court  proceedings but in a fair  commonsense  way  as  men  of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny.  Absence  of  any evidence in support  of a finding is certainly available  for the court to look into because it amounts to an

5

error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this  case,  that  the  evidence  of  Chamanlal, Inspector  of  the  Flying  Squad,  is  some evidence  which  has  relevance  to  the  charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground.

5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the  non-compliance  with  the  departmental instruction  that  statements  of  passengers should  be  recorded  by inspectors.  These  are instructions of prudence,  not rules that bind or  vitiate  in  the  violation.  In  this  case,  the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers  declined,  the  psychology  of  the latter  in  such  circumstances  being understandable,  although  may  not  be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements  of  passengers  were  not  recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the  re-evaluation  of  the  evidence  on  the strength  of  co-conductor’s  testimony  is  a matter  not  for  the  court  but  for  the Administrative  Tribunal.  In  con-  clusion,  we do  not  think  the  courts  below  were  right  in overturning  the  finding  of  the  domestic tribunal.”

8. The view was reiterated in  Divisional Controller KSRTC

(NWKSRTC) v. A.T. Mane (2004 (8) SCALE 308).  

6

9. As rightly contended by the appellant since fairness of

the proceedings was conceded and the respondent admitted

that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers,  their non-

examination is really of no consequence.

10. In view of what has been stated by this Court in Rattan

Singh’s case (supra) and in A.T. Mane's case (supra) award of

the  Labour  Court  and  impugned  order  of  the  High  Court

cannot  be  maintained  and  are  set  aside.  The  order  of

dismissal passed by the Corporation is to operate.  

11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.  

………………………….………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………….……….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, July 18, 2008

7