- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Regional Manager, Rsrtc v. Ghanshyam Sharma .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was employed as a conductor by the appellant. He had previously been punished on more than one occasion after being charge-sheeted for not issuing tickets to passengers. In the incident giving rise to the present proceedings, it was found that he was carrying 23 1/2 passengers without tickets. A departmental inquiry was conducted, following which he was removed from service.
Upon an industrial reference, the Labour Court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 11-A. While upholding the finding of misconduct, it directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s award; that decision was reversed by the Division Bench. The matter then came before the Supreme Court in appeal, with special leave granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Labour Court was justified, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A, in interfering with the punishment of dismissal and directing reinstatement despite upholding the finding of misconduct for carrying passengers without tickets.
- Whether, in cases of conductors carrying passengers without tickets, an order of dismissal should be set aside as a matter of discretion under Section 11-A.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Karnataka SRTC v. B.S Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 | Carrying passengers without tickets or issuing tickets at a lower rate amounts to dishonesty or gross negligence; such conduct leads to financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation; in such cases, dismissal orders should not be set aside and such conductors are not fit to be retained in service. | The Court treated the present case as falling within this category and relied on the precedent to conclude that reinstatement reflected misplaced sympathy and that dismissal should not have been interfered with. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S Hullikatti, which characterized the conduct of bus conductors carrying passengers without tickets (or issuing tickets at a lesser rate) as conduct amounting to dishonesty or gross negligence. The Court emphasized that such conduct causes financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation and that, in matters of this nature, dismissal should not ordinarily be set aside.
On the exercise of powers under Section 11-A, the Court acknowledged that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment. However, it stressed that such discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Court agreed with the Single Judge’s view that interference was not justified here because the core duties of a conductor include issuing tickets, collecting fare, and depositing the same with the Corporation. A failure in these duties, as found in the present case, did not warrant reinstatement; ordering reinstatement was described as “misplaced sympathy” in place of dismissal.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order, and restored the Single Judge’s decision. No costs were awarded.
The direct effect is that the Labour Court’s direction of reinstatement does not stand, and the dismissal of the respondent is effectively maintained. The decision applies the principle stated in the cited precedent to the facts of this case; the opinion does not indicate that it lays down any new rule beyond that application.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent in the present case was employed as a conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the tickets to the passengers. In the instant case, it was found that he was carrying 23 1/2 passengers without ticket and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service.
3. On a reference being made, the Labour Court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 11-A and while upholding the finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct it directed the respondent's reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the award which decision has been reversed by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal.
4. This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.
5. Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the Single Judge in the present case that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under Section 11-A the Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge restored. No costs.
Alert