LexU.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. &ANR. versus GOPAL SHUKLA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 423 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. &ANR. A v. GO PAL SHUKLA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.2038 of2012) SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] B U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1'947 - s. 6(2-A) - Bus conductor with appellant-Corporation carried 25 passengers without ticket - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal from C service - Industrial dispute raised - Labour court set aside the dismissal order and passed the award relating to reinstatement holding that the allegation of personal gain and corruption was not established - High Court upheld the 0 award- On appeal, held: The said misconduct does not stand on a lesser footing than embezzlement or corruption and results in loss of faith and breaches the trust - Charge pertaining to personal gain established - Degree of corruption is immaterial - Whole act is reprehensible and E does not commend any lenience - Thus, the courts below erred qy imposing a lesser punishment on the workman whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the charges accepted by the labour court, should have been dismissal - Exercise of power u/s. 6(2-A) by Labour Court F was arbitrary and was not exercised in a judicial manner - Award by the Labour Court as well as the order by the High Court set aside and the order of dismissal imposed by the Corporation restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 An employee holding the post that requires trust and confidence is.expected to behave with G 423 H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A discipline, loyalty and also maintain the fiscal sanctity. He should not allow anything to creep in which would make him a person of questionable integrity. When the first three charges were treated to have been established by adducing cogent evidence, neither the Labour Court B nor the High Court should have been guided by the sense of mercy and direct reinstatement. The motive of the respondent from the act is inherent. When such kind of indiscipline causes financial loss to the Corporation, adequate punishment has to be imposed and such C misconduct does not stand on a lesser footing than embezzlement or corruption and more importantly results in loss of faith and breaches the trust. The fundamental duty and work must not be forgotten. A 0 number of persons had been allowed to travel in the bus, without paying fare as if the fare was paid, the same was pocketed. [Para 10) [433-E-H; 434-A] 1.2 As the facts reveal, there could not have been any recovery. The non-recovery of the amount does not E mean that there was no personal gain to the conductor or concealing of corruption for personal gains by lodging a report with the police regarding misplacing of waybill by the employee. The said charge has been F proven in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has not really dislodged that finding. It has really proceeded in a mercurial manner and adverted to the issue of misappropriation. It has remained wholly oblivious to the facts that conductor had allowed 25 passengers to travel G without ticket; that by virtue of the said act, the Corporation had sustained loss; that he had mischievously lodged an FIR at the police station regarding misplacing ofwaybill by him; that his conduct manifestly shows his involvement for personal gain, and H that the eventual act was to conceal the corruption which U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOPAL 425 · SHUKLA was rooted in his personal gain. The finding recorded A by the Labour Court is absolutely perverse and.the High Court repeated the reasons and concurred with the conclusion. Thus, the irresistible conclusion is that the charge pertaining to personal gain has been established. Though there is concurrent finding of fact, but the B approach being manifestly perverse, the same can be interfered with in exercise of power u/Art. 136 of the Constitution. [Para 12) [435-H; 436-A-F] 1.3 The degree of corruption is immaterial. The whole C act is reprehensible and such a situation does not even remotely commend any lenience. [Para 15) [437-G; 438- B] 1.4 Both the Labour Court and the High Court erred 0 by imposing a lesser punishment on the respondent- workman whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the charges which have been accepted by the labour court, should have been dismissal and not a lesser one. The exercise of power under Section 6(2- E A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.