DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.E.K.R.T.C. versus H.AMARESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.E.K.R.T.C. 
A 
v. 
H.AMARESH 
JULY 17, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 10(4)/Conduct and Discipline 
Regulations: 
C 
Conductor-Charges of misconduct and misappr1Jpriation-Enquiry-
Dismissal from service-Industrial dispute-Only the charge of pilferage 
proved against the errant workman-Labour Court ordering his reinstatement 
in service with 75% back-wages-Affirmed by appellate Court reducing the D 
back-wages !o 25'Yo--Affirmed by Division Bench of the High Court setting 
aside the findings of the Courts below on back-wages-On appeal, Held: Any 
dereliction of duty by the workman is highly detrimental to the financial 
well-being of the Corporation, thus, against public interest-Charges are 
grave and have the effect of disrupting the transport services-In such a case, 
there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the E 
judicial forum-Once a domestic tribunal, on the basis of an evidence, comes 
to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to a Tribunal/Court to 
substitute its subjective opinion in place thereof-Since charges of pilferage 
proved, which is grave in nature, interference by the Labour Court not 
justified-High Court erred in reinstating him in· service-Order of 
reinstatement is against the settled law-Hence order of dismissal of the F 
workman from service restored-Since the workman has no legal right to 
continue in service, employer is directed to discharge the errant workman 
from service-However, emoluments paid since his reinstatement in service 
should not be recovered. 
The respondent was working as a conductor in the appellant-
Corporation. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him charging 
him for consuming alcohol while on duty; not performing scheduled duty; 
unauthorised absence from duty and pilferage. The Corporation conducted 
585 
G 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A an inquiry against him in accordance with the principles of natural justice 
and 'Conduct & Discipline' Regulations. The Inquiry Officer found the 
charges levelled against him proved. The errant workman was dismissed from 
service. Aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4) of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. 
B 
The Labour Court observed that out of 4 charges levelled against him, 
only the charge of pilferage stood proved, hence, passed an award directing 
his reinstatement in scn'ice with 75% back wages. Aggrieved, the appellant-
Corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of 
the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court but modified the order 
C on payment of back-wages by reducing it to 25%. The Corporation filed an 
appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the 
impugned judgment, affirmed the findings of the Labour Court and of the 
Single Judge with regard to reinstatement; however, it set aside their findings 
on back wages. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. There is absolutely no precision in regard to the factual 
aspects and findings rendered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court 
directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman despite holding him guilty 
of the charge of pilferage levelled against him and directed his reinstatement 
E in service with back wages. Any dereliction of duty by the workman is highly 
detrimental to the financial well being of the Corporation and is also against 
public interest. 1591-G-H; 592-AI 
1.2. Since the charges of pilferage were established against the 
workman, such misconduct is grave and has the effect of disrupting the 
F services of a public transport system. Both the Courts failed to consider all 
the cogent evidence and documents produced by the Corporation before them. 
The Labour Court has miserably erred by not considering that the respondent 
was in a drunken condition when there was no denial on the part of the 
workman to that effect. By not considering this, the High Court has also 
G erred. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its 
affirmation by the High Court is contrary to the settled law on the subject. 
1592-C; G, HI 
H 
Regional Manager, RSRTC '" Ghanshyam Sharma, 120021 IO SCC 330 
and Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. H11/lika11i, 120011 2 SCC 574, relied on. 
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. N.E.K.R.TC ,- H. A MARESH 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.