G.S Singhvi, J.:— This petition has been filed for quashing of the award dated 28.1.1986 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Reference no. 209 of 1985 ‘Ajit Singh v. Punjab Roadways, Depot II, Chandigarh.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this decision are that when bus No. 7832, belonging to Punjab Roadways, on which the petitioner was working as conductor and which was going from Manali to Chandigarh, was checked at Nauni, 9 passengers were found without ticket although the petitioner had collected Rs. 12.75 as fare from them. A departmental enquiry was held against him by the Traffic Manager Shri Iqbal Singh who held him guilty of the charge. Thereafter his services were terminated on 3.7.1983 The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh for adjudication. After consideration the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the Labour Court held that the departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of defence was given to him. However, taking into consideration the plea of proverty raised by the petitioner and the length of service rendered by him as well as past record, the learned Presiding Officer held that the punishment imposed upon the workman was highly excessive. On the basis of this findings the Labour Court passed the impugned award and substituted the Punishment of dismissal from service with a comparatively lenient penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and denial of back wages. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice is erroneous and also on the ground that the substituted penalty is extremely harsh and unjust.
3. We have heard Shri Sarjit Singh and Shri Rupinder Khosla and are convinced that the impugned award does not suffer from any error of law warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction. The argument of Shri Sarjit Singh that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself because he was not provided with the assistance of co-worker has been rejected by the learned Labour Court by making the following observations:
“Rules regarding taking assistance of co-worker is that a delinquent can take the assistance of co-worker. There is no provision that it is the duty of the enquiry officer to apprise a worker or to inform the workman that he can take the assistance of co-worker. The purpose behind taking assistance of co-worker is that a worker should have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In the present case the workman also made no application to the enquiry officer requesting him to take the assistance of co-worker. The worker even did not make any oral request to the enquiry officer disclosing his intention to take the assistance of co-worker. So I am of the opinion that lapse on the part of the enquiry officer that he did not apprise the delinquent employee regarding taking assistance of co-worker is not sufficient to vitiate the enquiry proceedings. Moreover omission on the part of the workman to take the assistance of co-worker has not prejudiced this case because the perusal of the enquiry file shows that workman had thoroughly cross-examined the witnesses. When the workman had himself thoroughly cross-examined the witnesses, it cannot be said that merely because he omitted to take assistance of co-worker, he has been prejudiced in his defence.”
4. While expressing our complete agreement with the above extracted observations with the Labour Court, we hold that the power which vests with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal etc. under Section 11 A are wide and pervasive and it is open to such Court to go into the various issues concerning the legality of the enquiry held by the employer and also into the merits of the allegations levelled against the employee. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court is extremely limited. It cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court nor can it re-appreciate the evidence etc. to record a different conclusion. In view of these limitations, we decline interference with the conclusion recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not vitiated on account of the violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. The second contention of Shri Sarjit Singh is that the Labour Court has erred in awarding the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. He submitted that the delinquency committed by the petitioner was trivial and, therefore, the Labour Court should not have awarded the extreme penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. However, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the Labour Court has erred in substituting the penalty of dismissal with the one of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Rather, in our opinion, the Labour Court has been extremely lenient towards the petitioner. While dismissing C.W.P No. 12134 of 1994 Amrik Singh v. The Labour Court, U.T Chandigarh on 2.9.1994, a Division bench of this Court dealt with the issue of punishment imposed on a conductor who was found guilty of collecting fare without issuing tickets and held as under:
“A conductor in the service of a Transport Corporation or Roadways plays a vital role as part of revenue collecting machinery of that Corporation/Roadways. In fact, revenue collection in the form of passenger fare constitutes the funds on which the Corporation/Roadways can carry on its business and industry. If an employee constituting a part of the cadre of Conductors is found responsible for carrying passengers without tickets after collecting fare from them, his acts constitutes a serious threat to the industry, namely, the roadways. Employees engaged in public employment constitute a class which carries an onerous responsibility on their shoulders. They have always to remember that they are servants of the public and not its masters. They are trustees of public faith and confidence which is reposed in them by the public at large. Proper and efficient functioning of public institutions, including agencies and instrumentalities of the State in sine qua non for the progress of the nation. These public bodies have been created, established and constituted to serve the public interest. Therefore, if by their action or omissions employees of these public institutions commit breach of trust and faith, there will be little justification for showing any compassion or leniency by the Courts. Employees found guilty of fraud, embezzlement or mis-appropriation of funds belonging to the public institutions cannot claim any equitable relief from the Courts. A public servant who is found guilty of misappropriation of public funds has no right to serve the public. In fact, such employees must be dealt with sternly and appropriate punishment must be awarded to them after holding a domestic/departmental enquiry in consonance with the rules of natural justice.”
6. The same view has been reiterated in ‘Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar C.W.P No. 11456 of 1994 decided on November 23, 1994.
7. In view of the principles laid down in the above mentioned two decisions, we hold that the impugned award does not suffer from any error of law.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S.K Kumaran, J.
R.M.S-Petition dismissed.