Full Judgment
1. Award dated 11-1-2012 passed in ID No. 43 of 2008 by the Labour Court, Hubballi setting aside the penalty of reduction of basic pay of the workman to the minimum scale of the post of conductor and substituting it by the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for the proved misconduct of non-issue of tickets and non-collection of fare from six passengers of the KSRTC bus has been challenged both by the workman and the management of NKRTC in these two writ petitions. W.P. No.78258 of 2013 is filed by the Corporation whereas W.P. No. 109416 of 2014 has been filed by the Corporation whereas W.P. No. 109416 of 2014 has been filed by the workman.
2. Undisputed facts are that the workman was a conductor in the bus belonging to respondent-Corporation. While he was conducting the bus from Dharwad to Lakmapur, the bus was checked by the Checking Inspector near Dasanakoppa Cross and it was found that out of 30 passengers in the bus, workman had failed to issue tickets to six passengers and had not collected fare amount of Rs. 3.50/- from each of the passengers travelling from Dharwad to Dasanakoppa Cross. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the delinquent who denied the charges. His defence was that a false case was booked by the checking officials because of some altercation and angry exchanges betwe4en the workman and the concerned ATR at the time of allotment of duty to workman on the same day. In the enquiry, workman was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed the punishment of reducing the basic pay of the conductor to the minimum of the pay scale of the conductor. The workman raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Labour Court, Hubballi.
3. The domestic enquiry conducted was held to be fair and proper. The Labour Court on reappreciation of the materials found that alleged misconduct was established. However, as regards the penalty imposed, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that it was a case of non-issue and non-collection; having due regard to the length of service put in by the workman to minimum of the pay scale treating him as a fresh appointee was disproporationate and harsh to the charge proved and, therefore, it modified the punishment to that of withholding of one increment permanently. In this background, these writ petitions have been filed.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for both parties. It is true bus was intercepted in between two stages consisting of short distance, but the fact remains that the Labour Court, on reappreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that misconduct on the part of the conductor has been proved. This Court will not undertake examination of evidence to reach a contrary conclusion even if such a conclusion on facts may be possible.
5. However, the only point that arises for consideration in these writ petition is:
Based on the findings recorded and in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the penalty imposed reducing the pay of the conductor to minimum of the pay scale treating him as a fresh appointee was disproportionate and whether the Labour Court was right and justified in exercising its power to modify the penalty to withholding of one increment permanently.
6. As rightly held by the Labour Court, the penalty of reducing the pay scale to the minimum pay treating the workman as if he is a fresh appointee would tantamount to robbing him of 14 years of service. The misconduct alleged and proved was that of non-issue of tickets and on-collection of fare. There is no financial gain or misappropriation so far as the workman is concerned though it can be said that the Corporation has been put to loss due to the omission of the part of workman. At the same time, the Labour Court could not have allowed the workman to get away by imposing lesser punishment of withholding of only one increment. Therefore, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to hold that instead of withholding one increment with cumulative effect an order to withhold three increments with cumulative effect for the proved misconduct would meet the ends of justice.