U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation & Ors Vs. Shivaji [2006] Insc 786 (10 November 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari
O R D
E R [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.3586 of 2005] Leave granted.
Respondent
was appointed as a Driver by Appellants herein. On 07.12.1986, he was driving a
bus on Aligarh-Agra route. A barrier was installed at Sasani Bus Stand by the
public. The barrier was not installed by Appellant-Corporation or by any other
statutory authority. Respondent allegedly dashed into the barrier intentionally
and caused injuries to one Bhoodev. He was placed under suspension. A domestic
inquiry was held.
He was
found to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was directed to be
removed from services. An industrial dispute was raised whereupon the State
referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Agra:
"Whether
the termination of services of Shri Shivaji, S/o Shri Sundarlal, Driver, by the
employees vide order dated 07.09.1987 is legal and valid? If not, then to what
relief/benefit the workman is entitled? And with what details? A preliminary
issue was raised as to whether the domestic inquiry was legal and valid. It was
held not to be so; whereupon Appellants were granted opportunity to adduce
evidence to prove the charges against Respondent. Evidence was led before the Labour Court. On analysis of the evidence
brought on records, the Labour
Court held :
"Shri
Bhoodev Singh, S/o Mulayam Singh has been produced on behalf of employers who
stated that on 07.12.1986 the witness was posted as Sasani. A barrier was
installed in front of bus stand to stop the bus which was used to be opened by
the witness. On the said date the concerned workman came along with bus from
the side of Aligarh. The witness has lowered the barrier
to stop the bus but concerned workman did not stop the bus.
The
bus went ahead by breaking the barrier due to which the witness fell down and
got injuries in his hands and legs. In cross examination also no contrary fact
has been emerged from this witness and he has supported his original statement.
7. The
concerned workman has not produced any evidence in his defence. From
consideration of all the evidence and documents available on record the
conclusion is arrived that the workman has intentionally hit the barrier due to
which one employee got injured. In this accident there could be serious loss of
life and property. Therefore my opinion is that concerned workman is guilty of
serious misconduct and has no right to remain in service. The termination of
workman's services w.e.f. 07.09.1987 is legal and valid and he is not entitled
for any benefit/relief. Both parties will bear their own costs." A writ
petition was filed questioning the correctness of the said Award by Respondent
before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment was allowed, stating
:
"Statement
of aforementioned sole witness has been brought on record along with
supplementary affidavit. In the statement of aforementioned witness it has been
mentioned that he has received minor injury. It has been admitted by him that
while bus was proceeding from Aligarh to Sasni
then he asked to get bus stopped when the Bus was near to barrier and by that
time he was putting barrier down bus caused injuries to him. It has been
admitted that said barrier was not belonging to Roadways and it was totally
private barrier. No injuries has been caused by bus rather on account of
barrier falling, the rope was loosened on account of which he fell down. It has
been admitted that bus could have passed even without putting barrier down. No
justification has come on record as to why said bus was being stopped at that
private barrier. No First Information Report has been lodged, no medical
examination was done at Government Hospital. It is true that High Court has got no authority to
appreciate evidence, but the case in hand, taking the sequence of events
clearly establish that it is practically case of no evidence. Tested on the
touchstone of reasonableness and fairness, no reasonable or prudent man would construe,
this case to be a case of misconduct as has been alleged. Even the sentence,
which has been awarded, same is shockingly disproportionate to the charge which
had been levelled i.e. non stopping of bus at barrier. Injuries alleged to be
received by Bhoodev Singh are attributable to his own conduct as Bus in
question could have passed even putting barrier down." The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Appellants urged that Respondent having been found
guilty of a serious charge of misconduct by the Labour Court, the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court should not have been interfered
with by the High Court.
Ms. Sharda
Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent, on the other hand,
supported the judgment.
The Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). It
was categorically held that the domestic inquiry was not fair or valid and
Respondent in the domestic inquiry had not been granted adequate opportunity to
defend his case. Appellant was, therefore, granted opportunity to adduce
evidence afresh. The opinion of the Labour Court in the matter has, therefore, to be judged on the basis of
the evidence adduced before it. The Labour Court did not analyze the evidence adduced by the parties at all.
It adopted a wrong approach. It did not consider as to whether 'Bhoodev' who
was examined on behalf of the Corporation, being its employee could have
operated the said barrier particularly when his job was only to serve water to
its employees. The barrier, according to him, had not been put up by the
Corporation. He was not on duty to operate the said barrier. As noticed
hereinbefore, the public allegedly installed the said barrier for which no
authority existed.
The
fact as to why the said barrier was put up and whether the same was within the
knowledge of all the drivers of the Corporation had not been disclosed. Even
according to the said witness, no First Information Report was lodged. He did
not receive any serious injury. The statement of 'Bhoodev' before the
disciplinary authority was marked as an exhibit. In his statement before the
domestic inquiry he stated :
"Q.
When you had closed the barrier, how far was the bus standing? A. As soon as
the bus came, I had pulled down the barrier but as soon as the driver of the
bus lowered down speed of the bus and asked to raise the barrier, I tried to
open the barrier, but even then it was hit by the corners of the portion of the
bus above the glass.
Q.
When you raise the barrier, how far were you dragged along with rope behind the
bus? A. I was dragged for about the distance of five hands." The charge levelled
against Respondent was noticed by the Labour Court in the following terms :
"On
18.12.1986 information has been received against the Driver that on 07.12.1986
when he was driving bus No. UTR 4007 on Aligarh-Agra route, he intentionally
broken the barrier installed near Sasani bus stand. He had negligently driven
the bus towards Agra due to which an employee Bhoodev
received injuries in the accident. On this basis a chargesheet was issued to
concerned workman on 20.01.1987 and domestic enquiry got made in accordance
with law" The offence to cause any intentional injury, thus, cannot be
said to have been proved. The High Court was, therefore, not wholly incorrect
in opining that there was no evidence to prove the charges levelled against
him.
In
fact, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
did not assign any reason as to how the charges could be said to have been
proved. He had not taken into consideration his power under Section 11-A of the
Act in regard to quantum of punishment. Why he had opined that the workman was
guilty of serious misconduct and had no right to remain in service has not been
explained.
The
matter in ordinary course should have been remitted to the Labour Court for passing an appropriate award,
but keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, we
ourselves considered the evidence on records.
We,
therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted in
its entirety. The High Court has granted reinstatement of Respondent with only
50% back wages. The said order has been stayed by this Court. Respondent was
out of service for a long time. He, as noticed hereinbefore, even during the pendency
of the domestic inquiry had been kept under suspension. He, however, was
driving rashly and negligently.
In a
case of this nature, doctrine of proportionality would also be applicable.
Doctrine of irrationality is now giving way to doctrine of proportionality. [See
Commissioner of Police and Others v. Syed Hussain (2006) 3 SCC 173]. The Labour Court also did not consider this aspect
of the matter. If only a charge of negligence had been proved against him, we
are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if he is
directed to be reinstated in service with 25% back wages.
The
appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
