Arun Madan, J.
1. The petitioner who is an ex employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and having served the Corporation in the capacity of conductor, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated December 5, 1990 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Kota in a reference case No. 32/1981 on the grounds inter-alia that he was appointed as Conductor in the service of the Corporation vide Order, dated April 16, 1974. He had been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and he was confirmed on the said post vide Order, dated January 11, 1978.
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that on July 6, 1978 a chargesheet was served upon him on the allegations that on June 30, 1978 when he was asked for Travellers Ticket Book by the Inspectors who had made surprise checking while on invigilation duty in the bus he was travelling, he refused to furnish the same and instead took up the quarrel with the invigilating staff thereby damaging the prestige and interest of the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet denying the same in toto. An enquiry was directed by the Corporation against the petitioner vide order, dated July 9, 1978 (Annexure 2) by appointing an enquiry officer. It has been contended by the petitioner in this regard that the said enquiry was initiated against him without following any procedure established by law inasmuch as even the statements of the witnesses had not been recorded nor the petitioner workman was heard in person and nor copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he was directed to be removed from services of the Corporation vide order, dated September 20, 1978.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Corporation the petitioner raised an industrial dispute against his removal from service and the said dispute was duly registered by the Tribunal and notices were issued to the respondents but in view of their adamant and mala fide attitude, the dispute could not be amicably settled and hence a failure report was submitted. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the State Government after perusal of the failure report, referred the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to the Labour Court, Kota for adjudication in accordance with law as per the terms of reference indicated below:
'Whether removal of workman Sampat Raj Pareek former Conductor from the services by the Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Kota is just and legal and if so to what relief the workman is entitled for'?
4. After the receipt of above reference, it was registered as reference case No. 32/1981 and the Labour Court, Kota issued notices for compliance to which the petitioner submitted his statement of claim. The Corporation filed its written statement contesting the petitioner's claim vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. On August 6, 1982, the Corporation stated before the Labour Court that the concerned enquiry file has been lost and hence permission be granted to them to adduce evidence before the Court itself whereupon the Labour Court permitted the parties to adduce their respective evidence. As many as 10 affidavits on behalf of the Corporation had been filed before the Labour Court alongwith numerous documents. The petitioner besides his own affidavit and the affidavit of one Shri Om Prakash also produced the recorded statements of Jagdish, Kanhialal and Harakchand besides other documents.
5. On enquiry conducted before learned Labour Court, the charges levelled against the petitioner stood fully proved on the basis of evidence led by the parties and the said Court on the analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case found the termination of service of the petitioner with effect from September 20, 1978 as legal and justified and thereafter passed the impugned award dated December 5, 1990. Learned Labour Court in its award placing reliance upon the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Mohammad v. R.S.R.TC. 1990 Lab. IC 1458 observed that those witnesses, i.e., the passengers who were found travelling in the bus at the relevant time when the petitioner was on duty and apprehended by the invigilating staff, it is apparent that the petitioner had collected fare charges from atleast 9 passengers who were found travelling without ticket in Bus No. 2152 in which the petitioner was on duty as Conductor and all the said passengers have deposed to the said effect that the fare charges were realised from them by the Conductor and tickets were not issued to them in lieu thereof. On the basis of evidence on record and on thorough examination of the enquiry report, the chargesheet and the reply of the petitioner to the same, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed against him and consequently the Labour Court, Kota held that the said charge was fully proved against him and consequently directed the removal of the petitioner from services of the Corporation. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the impugned Award present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
6. In reply to show cause notice, the Corporation has contended by way of preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds that the Divisional Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Kota viz. the respondent No. 2 is engaged in carriage of passengers in the Buses run by it in the territory of Rajasthan and also in the adjoining States. Each bus is provided with one Conductor and a driver and it is the responsibility of the Conductor to see that tickets are duly issued to each of the passengers travelling in the bus and also to look after the comforts of the commuters. The sole responsibility to collect revenue by issuance of the tickets is on the conductor himself and whatever revenue is collected by him, he is supposed to deposit the same with the Corporation at the destination point on the same day. A complete honesty and integrity is pre-requisite for the post of Conductor and if he indulges in dishonesty, collects the money from the passengers but does not issue the tickets to them or allows them to carry luggage without proper charges, he cannot be considered fit to be retained in service of the Corporation and the petitioner had admittedly committed breach of the aforesaid requirements.
7. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the Corporation contended at the bar that the charges which were framed against the petitioner were found fully proved on the basis of evidence on the record led before the Judge, Labour Court, Kota and it is well reasoned award which does not call for any interference by this Court. It was further contended by the learned counsel that as per the statutory provisions as envisaged under the Act of 1947 the Award given by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal attains finality soon after its publication as per the provisions of Section 17A of the Act of 1947. There lies no appeal against the Award. The scope of challenge against the Award under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited strictly to the points of law and as such its judicial review has a limited scope.
8. On merits, learned counsel for the Corporation contended that in the present Award there is no illegality committed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota and as such the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal on the preliminary ground alone. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was duly chargesheeted by the Corporation for acts of misconduct and his past conduct has been such as would not justify his retention in service and he had been awarded punishment on several occasions in the past prior to his termination from service. It has further been contended that his reply to the chargesheet dated July 6, 1978 was not found satisfactory and, therefore, enquiry was conducted against him which was fully in order and in accordance with the procedure as laid down in the Rules. The statements of the witnesses were duly recorded and the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and was also given an opportunity to defend himself but unfortunately the petitioner had stolen away the file and had disappeared after the preliminary enquiry. FIR was lodged against him and a case of theft of the departmental file was duly registered with the police against the petitioner. It has further been stated that a proper enquiry was duly held on the basis of evidence on the record and it is also established that the enquiry file was sent to the appellate authority and the said file was stolen away from the office of the appellate authority and on investigation it was revealed that the said file was stolen by the petitioner.
9. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner while controverting the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Corporation assailed the vires of the impugned award on the ground inter-alia.
10. (a) Domestic enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner does not indicate anything on the record to the effect that the departmental file was lost or had been stolen away by the petitioner.
(b) There is no material on the record to justify as to when the bus in which the petitioner was discharging his duties as a conductor was checked by the invigilating staff as alleged and as to how the Inspector had come to the conclusion that 9 passengers were found travelling without tickets.
(c) There has been breach of guidelines on the part of the Corporation in the manner of conducting enquiry and there was no charge against the petitioner regarding his past misconduct.
(d) In absence of any guidelines besides independent evidence and conclusive proof, whether the misconduct as held by the Labour Court can be said to be tenable in the eye of law ?
(e) Even if it is assumed, though not admitted, that the charge has been proved, even then can the punishment of dismissal which virtually amounts to civil death, can be held tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(f) The petitioner has faced prosecution for more than 14 years and was acquitted vide order dated May 9, 1995 by the competent Court.
(g) The statements of the witnesses cited by the Corporation have been wrongly given credence, while the statements of defence witnesses have not been relied upon.
11. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court:
Rajindra Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration (1984-II-LLJ-517), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. : (1980-I-LLJ-137) Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Ors. : AIR 1990 S.C. 209, Khem Chand v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1985(1) SLR 533; Lal Bahadur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1990(2) RLR 41 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. The Judge Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, (1974-II-LLJ-328).
12. In order to examine the legality of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner, it will be better if the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and this Court are properly understood.
13. In the matter of Khem Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the charges framed against the delinquent were almost similar to those framed against the petitioner. The delinquent who as a conductor in service of R.S.R.T.C. was apprehended by the checking staff for having allowed some passengers to travel without tickets. In an enquiry the statements of the passengers were recorded and all of them had deposed against the conductor. The Corporation directed the removal of the petitioner from service after due enquiry. Since the report of the enquiry officer did not disclose that he had applied his mind to the defence of the petitioner and had based his findings on the presumption. Learned Single Judge of this Court held that since the disciplinary authority's order neither disclosed the reasons for his accepting the report of the enquiry officer nor it disclosed the application of mind and since the appellate authority had mechanically rejected the appeal, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
14. In the matter of Lal Bahadur v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it was held by this Court that where the rules providing procedure of enquiry have not been followed, the dismissal order based on such enquiry is liable to be quashed and set aside. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar v. Delhi Administration (supra) wherein it was held that whether the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence, such finding is perverse and the order based on such finding is liable to be quashed and set aside.
15. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar and in my considered opinion the petitioner does not deserve to succeed. In my view there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota in his Award dated December 5, 1990 for the reason that it is based on due appreciation of evidence recorded by the enquiry officer during the course of domestic enquiry and it has come on the record that as on June 30, 1978 while the petitioner was discharging his duties as conductor in bus belonging to the Corporation, on inspection by the invigilating staff it was discovered that atleast 9 passengers were found travelling without tickets and from whom fare had been collected by the petitioner but the petitioner with a view to cause undue revenue loss to the Corporation had not issued tickets to those passengers. AH the said passengers were duly examined and their statements are corroborative and consistent to this effect against the petitioner. It has also come to the record that this was not the first occasion when the petitioner was apprehended but on atleast 11 other occasions in the past the petitioner had been found guilty of various charges and awarded minor punishments from time to time. In my considered opinion an employee who is dishonest and lacks integrity and devotion to duty does not deserve to be retained in service of the Corporation any longer.
16. With regard to the legal position on the subject I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety committed by learned Labour Court in giving the award dated December 5, 1990 which was duly published in accordance with Section 17A of the Act of 1947 and as per Sub-section (2) of Section 17 the Award was published in accordance with Sub-section (1) shall be final and binding and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever. Further as per Section 17A of the Act of 1947 the Award including an Arbitration Award shall become enforceable on expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17 of the Act of 1947. I am further of the opinion that since there is cogent and reliable evidence on record against the petitioner which was duly recorded by the enquiry officer who had conducted the enquiry and consequent upon his report the competent authority directed the removal of the petitioner from the service of the Corporation with effect from September 20, 1978, in my considered opinion the same is justified and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court, since the same is perfectly just and in accordance with law has attained its finality after its publication in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act as aforesaid.
17. I am fortified in my observations from the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts.
18. In the matter of RSRTC Alwar v. Kailash Chandra and Anr. reported in (1995-I-LLJ-268) (Raj) it was held that the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur was under challenge by way of a writ petition filed by the Corporation, the workman was appointed as conductor at Alwar Depot of the Corporation. On the basis of being checked by the inspecting party near Alwar it was found that some passengers from whom fare had been collected but tickets not issued. On the basis of the record submitted by the inspecting party a domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman. After holding domestic enquiry, the workman was removed from service vide termination order which became subject matter of reference by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudication. Before the Labour Court the workman challenged the enquiry proceedings on various grounds. The Corporation contested the claim of the workman and pleaded that the workman had been rightly found guilty of carrying passengers without ticket and for not having accounted the fare charges collected from the passengers. It was contended before this Court that it was not open to the Labour Court to have interfered with the quantum of punishment even by exercising the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of theft, dishonesty, forgery, misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds in which no indulgence should be shown to the employees who are found guilty of such acts. This Court while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of D.C. Roy v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1760 held that where a person was found guilty of misconduct in relation to dishonesty, the punishment of dismissal can neither be considered as harsh nor unfair. It was consequently held by this Court that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the same was accordingly quashed and set aside.
19. In the matter of Rafiq Mohammad v. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, RSRTC, Jodhpur (supra) by a writ petition the petitioner had challenged the legality of the impugned Award of Judge Labour Court, Jodhpur upholding the validity of the impugned order of removal from service passed by the RSRTC, Jodhpur. It was held that in a domestic enquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply and all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. The guilt of a conductor or driver charge-sheeted for having charged fare without issuing any tickets can be established on the basis of the evidence of an Inspector of the flying squad or any other checking Inspector, although he has not recorded the statements of the passengers, who have paid the fare. Strictly speaking, such an evidence of the Inspector is hearsay evidence but since it is an evidence taken in administrative and departmental proceedings, it is a relevant piece of evidence about a charge framed against the delinquent officer. Further, the nature of duties performed by the booking clerks and the conductor or driver of the bus are different. In approach -by the passengers, the booking clerks on booking windows are required to issue tickets and if none approaches them, they are required to handover the way bill to the driver without making any entry in it. Therefore driver could not be exonerated of the guilt on grounds that services of booking clerks were not terminated although they were charge-sheeted.
20. This view was again re-affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh (1982-I-LLJ-46) wherein it was held that the evidence of inspecting staff is sufficient to prove the charges and the passengers who were found travelling without tickets need not be examined in evidence. The Apex Court observed as under:
'It has always been the philosophy of Industrial Jurisprudence that if the domestic enquiry held by the employer was defective, deficient, incomplete or not held at all, the Tribunal, instead of remanding the case to the enquiry officer for holding the enquiry de-novo, would itself require the parties to produce their evidence so as to decide whether the charges, for which disciplinary action was taken against the employees, were established or not. The pending proceedings keep the employer and the employee in a state of confrontation generating further misgivings and bitterness. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that such proceedings should come to an end at the earliest so as to maintain industrial peace and cordial relations between the management and the labour.'
21. In the matter of Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management (1973-I-LLJ-278) it was held by the Apex Court as under at para 42:
'No doubt it has been emphasised in the various decisions of this Court that an employer is expected to hold a proper enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman. If that requirement is satisfied, an employer will by and large escape the attack that he has acted arbitrarily or mala-fide or by way of victimisation. If he has held a proper enquiry, normally his bona-fides will be established.'
22. I am further of the view that in matters pertaining to domestic enquiries, sophisticated rules of evidence are not attracted. I am fortified in my observations in this regard from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh (supra).
23. On the question of quantum of punishment I am of the view that it is commensurate with the gravity of charge and the order of removal from service is perfectly valid, constitutional and its validity is not open to challenge before this Court and I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar v. Kailash Chand Shartna and Anr. (supra), Shabir Ahmad Khan v. Labour Court, Ranchi and Anr. 1990 (2) LLN 870 and the State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1993-I-LLJ-218) wherein the Apex Court held as under :
'The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the surroundings or attending circumstances. Take for instance the delinquent that put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record; in 30th year he commits defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it mean that he should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but he should be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get this full. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single set of corruption is sufficient to award the order of dismissal under the rule as gravest act of misconduct.'
24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject and also examined legality and propriety of the impugned Award, dated December 5, 1990 passed by learned Judge Labour Court, Kota. In my view the impugned Award is not liable to be interfered with and the propriety of the same is consequently upheld.
25. As a result of the above discussion, I am consequently of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court against the impugned Award, dated December 5, 1990 passed by learned Judge Labour Court, Kota in reference case No. 32/1981 and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.