LexDIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN S.R.T.C. versus KAMRUDDIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [20091 8 S.C.R. 1180 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN S.R.T.C. v. KAMRUDDIN (Civil Appeal No. 3485 of 2009) MAY 12, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: c s. 11 A ·· Power of Labour Court to interfere with quantum of punishment - Held: Should be exercised judiciously - In the instant case, misconduct of the delinquent bus conductor while on probation was proved - Disciplinary enquiry was found to have been conducted in a fair manner - Award of 0 Labour Court directing reinstatement of delinquent cannot be sustained, and is set aside. Certified Standing Orders: Standing Order No. 36 - Held: Would prevail over E departmental circular. The respondent, a bus conductor, while on probation was caught on five occasions for having not issued tickets to passengers. He was placed under suspension. F The disciplinary enquiry initiated against him culminated in an order of termination of his services. The Labour Court, despite finding that the enquiry was fairly conducted, held that the punishment was disproportionate, and accordingly, passed an award substituting the punishment by stoppage of two G increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement of the workman, but without back wages. The Department having remained unsuccessful in the writ petition as also in intra-court appeal before the High Court filed the appeal. 1180 H DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAJASTHAN S.R.T.C. v. 1181 KAMRUDDIN Allowing the appeal, the Court A 4 HELD: 1.1. The power of Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal in terms of s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the quantum of punishment although cannot be denied, but it i$ !llso a e well settled principle of law-that the s~id power should be exercised judiciously. [Para 1 OJ [1189-C-D] Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hulfikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574], Regional Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002) 10 SCC 330, Uttaranchal c Transport Corporation vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiya/ 2008 (12) sec 131, relied on . . .. 1.2. It is not a case where the misconduct against the ~ respondent had not been proved. It is also not a case D where the domestic en..juiry was found of have been conducted in an unfair manner or contrary to the principles of natural justice. The services of the respondent had been terminated while the period of probation was not over. As a conductor, his performance E ~ during the period of probation was found to be unsatisfactory. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary .., proceeding were initiated against him while he was found to have committed similar misconduct for the fifth time. It is also beyond any doubt or dispute that he had also F been served with a letter or warning. [Para 9] [1188-H; 1189-A-D] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bhagyo Mal & Ors. [1994] Supp 1 SCC 573, held inapplicable. G RSRTC vs. Shri Ram Yadav [1995 (3) WLC 16], cited. ~ .. ,, -" 2. Standing Order No. 36 merely provides for ~ different nature of penalties which can be imposed on a worker; and stating that penalties specified at Serial Nos. H 5 to 7 therein would be appealable. A corrigendum I 1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R. A thereto was issued on 24. 7 .1982 by way of clarification with regard to the full route fare as contained in Circular No. 625 dated 5.6.1982. The said corrigendum has nothing to do with the nature or quantum of penalty. The same does not provide for a substitution of the penalty B provided for in the Certified Standing Order. In any event, Certified Standing Order would prevail over such circulars. [Para 12] [1191-G-H; 1192-A-B] 3. It may be true that in execution of the award c passed by the Labour Court, for a short time respondent was put back in service. This Court, however, stayed the operation of the judgment by reason whereof the award as also the judgment of the High Court became non- operational. In the circumstances, the judgments of the D High Court and the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and are set asidA. [Para 13 and 14] [1192-8-D] Case Law Reference: 1995 (3) WLC 16 Cited Para 4 E 1994 (1) sec 573 held inapplicable Para 4 (2001) 2 sec 574 relied on Para 11 (2002) 1 o sec 330 relied on Para 11 F (2008) 12 sec 131 relied on Para 11 CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3485 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.