STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus VINOD KUMAR

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1018 · Decided: 06-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN, D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
-
v. 
VINODKUMAR 
DECEMBER 6, 2007 
B 
(ASHOK BHAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
' 
Labour Law: 
c 
Workman-Bus Conductor-Inquiry against for not giving 
tickets to passengers though charging from them-Removal from 
service-Labour Court holding the punishment to be harsh and 
substituting the same by stoppage of one increment without cumulative 
effect and directing reinstatement with full back wages-High Court 
D reducing the back wages to 50ro-Held: Since workman did not 
challenge correctness and legality of inquiry conducted, it was not 
open to Labour Court to go into findings of Inquiry Officer regarding 
} 
misconduct committed by delinquent-RemovaVdismissal from service 
is appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of 
E misappropriation of funds-Courts should be reluctant to reduce 
punishment on misplaced sympathy for such an employee. 
The respondent-workman, a bus conductor, was removed from 
service after an inquiry into the charge, inter alia, that he had 
/" 
collected the fare from 8 passengers in his bus, but did not give them 
! 
F 
the tickets. On an industrial dispute being raised, the matter was 
referred to the Labour Court. The workman did not press the legality 
~-
and fairness of the inquiry proceedings and confined his case only 
to the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer and the quantum 
of punishment. The Labour Court, however, held that the punishment 
G of removal imposed upon the workman was excessive in comparison 
to the charges levelled against him. It substituted the punishment 
of removal by stoppage of one increment without any cumulative 
effect and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. In the 
w1it petition filed by the workman, the High Court uphold the order 
H 
1018 
~ 
\ 
-
~ -1 
.J 
~ 
c---\. 
--
U.P.STATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONv. 
1019 
VIN OD KUMAR [ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
passed by the Labour Court, but reduced the back wages to 50%, 
Aggrieved, the Department filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
HELD: 1. Since the respondent had not challenged the 
correctness, legality or validity of the inquiry conducted, it was not 
open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the 
Inquiry Officer regarding the misconduct committed by the 
respondent. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the 
punishment ofremoval/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for 
an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds and the 
Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced 
sympathy fora workman; that, there is nothing wrong in the employer 
losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding 
punishment of dismissal; that, in such cases, there is no place for 
generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums 
and interfedng with the quantum of punishment. 
(Para 10] (1022-B-D] 
Divisional Controller, N. E. K. R. TC. v. H Amaresh, (2006] 6 SCC 
187, relied on. 
1.2. The judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed 
by the Labour Court are set aside. Consequently, the order passed 
by the disciplinary authority dismissing/removing the respondent 
from service is restored. [Para 11] [1023-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5660 
of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 03.08.2005 of the High 
Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 603(M/S) of 2002. 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. 
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAN, J. I. Leave granted 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
3.8.2005 passed by the High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Writ 
Petition No. 603 (MIS) of2002. By the impugned order, the High Court 
upheld the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the 
punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent was excessive in 
B comparison to the charges levelled against him. The High Court while 
maintaining the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment 
of removal was excessive in comparison to the charges levelled against 
the workman, reduced the back wages to 50%. 
3. Respondent-workman was appointed as a Conductor in the U.P. 
C State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant herein) on 26.9.1991. 
Respondent was conducting the bus on Kalsi-Chhani route, which was 
checked and, on inspection it w

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