2001 JTR(SC) 124
2003 AIR(Jhar)(R) 881 ; 2002 AIR(Kar)(R) 644 ; 2001 AIR(SC) 930 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 593 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 3113 ; 2001 1 AllCJ 518 ; 2001 1 CLR 699 ; 2001 98 FJR 359 ; 2001 88 FLR 912 ; 2001 1 GLH 796 ; 2001 2 JT 72 ; 2001 LIC 740 ; 2001 1 LLJ 725 ; 2001 1 LLN 893 ; 2001 2 MLJ 7 ; 2001 1 Scale 373 ; 2001 2 SCC 574 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 469 ; 2001 2 SCJ 195 ; 2001 1 SCR 487 ; 2001 1 SCT 787 ; 2001 1 SLR 781 ; 2001 1 SLT 740 ; 2001 1 UPLBEC 829 ; 2001 KHC 1730 ; 2001 1 Supreme 342
2001(1) Supreme 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
B.N. Kirpal & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation -Appellant
versus
B.S. Hullikatti -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16291 of 2000)
Decided on 22-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.S. Hegde and K.R. Nagaraja, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lali Mohini Bhat and Shiv Kumar Suri, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.11(a)
(A) The constitutional provisions Article 136 and Article 226 provide the apex and high court jurisdictional framework for challenging the Labour Court award, while the Industrial Disputes Act section 11(a) governs the principles governing dismissal, reinstatement, and back wages in the context of an inquiry into misconduct by an employee. These provisions collectively regulate the procedural and substantive validity of the termination and the subsequent reliefs available to the employee in this dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the fiduciary duty of a bus conductor to collect and remit the correct fare, the requirement of a fair domestic inquiry, and the appropriate quantum of back wages upon reinstatement.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a bus conductor with nearly 22 years of service, was dismissed after a domestic inquiry found that he collected Rs. 2.25 from 35 passengers but issued tickets of Rs. 1.75. The Labour Court held the inquiry unfair, set aside dismissal, and directed reinstatement with full back wages, a decision partially modified by the High Court. The appellant corporation sought special leave challenging the order.
Findings of Court:
The short-charging by the respondent from 35 passengers was established, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, indicating the act was either dishonest or grossly negligent, rendering the respondent unfit for retention. However, acknowledging the respondent's superannuation, the court declined to disturb the reinstatement order but held that he should not be entitled to any back wages, only retiral benefits.
Issues:
Whether the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order, whether the quantum of back wages awarded was appropriate, and whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied in this context.
Ratio Decidendi:
Given the proven fare evasion and the fiduciary breach, dismissal was warranted; however, due to the respondent's superannuation, reinstatement was not set aside but back wages were denied, limiting relief to retiral benefits.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of without setting aside the reinstatement order, denying the respondent any back wages while allowing retiral benefits.
(A) The constitutional provisions Article 136 and Article 226 provide the apex and high court jurisdictional framework for challenging the Labour Court award, while the Industrial Disputes Act section 11(a) governs the principles governing dismissal, reinstatement, and back wages in the context of an inquiry into misconduct by an employee. These provisions collectively regulate the procedural and substantive validity of the termination and the subsequent reliefs available to the employee in this dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the fiduciary duty of a bus conductor to collect and remit the correct fare, the requirement of a fair domestic inquiry, and the appropriate quantum of back wages upon reinstatement.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a bus conductor with nearly 22 years of service, was dismissed after a domestic inquiry found that he collected Rs. 2.25 from 35 passengers but issued tickets of Rs. 1.75. The Labour Court held the inquiry unfair, set aside dismissal, and directed reinstatement with full back wages, a decision partially modified by the High Court. The appellant corporation sought special leave challenging the order.
Findings of Court:
The short-charging by the respondent from 35 passengers was established, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, indicating the act was either dishonest or grossly negligent, rendering the respondent unfit for retention. However, acknowledging the respondent's superannuation, the court declined to disturb the reinstatement order but held that he should not be entitled to any back wages, only retiral benefits.
Issues:
Whether the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order, whether the quantum of back wages awarded was appropriate, and whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied in this context.
Ratio Decidendi:
Given the proven fare evasion and the fiduciary breach, dismissal was warranted; however, due to the respondent's superannuation, reinstatement was not set aside but back wages were denied, limiting relief to retiral benefits.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of without setting aside the reinstatement order, denying the respondent any back wages while allowing retiral benefits.
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. In the instant case, the respondent was a Bus Conductor working with the appellant-Corporation. A domestic inquiry was held in which it was alleged that he had collected at a particular trip of the bus Rs. 2.25 from each of the 35 passengers but had issued tickets of the denomination of Rs. 1.75 only.
3. As a result of the domestic inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. Reference was made to the Labour Court which came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair or proper. Opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence which it did.
4. After recording the evidence, the Labour Court by the impugned award came to the conclusion that the allegation that the Conductor had issued tickets of Rs.1.75 instead of Rs.2.25 was proved but it had not been proved that he had collected the amount of Rs. 2.25 from the passengers. The Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. On a writ petition being filed by the appellant-Corporation, the Single Judge dismissed the same after noting that the Labour Court had awarded 50 per cent of the back wages with reinstatement. Realising that this was a mistake, the Single Judge rectified the same and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The letters patent appeal was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
5. On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service as a Conductor for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Furthermore, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely, the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-Corporation.
6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.
7. In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, but we are informed that in the meantime the respondent has already superannuated. We, therefore, on the special facts of this case, do not set aside the order of reinstatement, but direct that the respondent would not be entitled to any back wages at all but he would be entitled to the retiral benefits.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
***************