TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 603 (M/S) of 2002. By the impugned order, the High Court upheld the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent was excessive in comparison to the charges levelled against him. The High Court while maintaining the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment of removal was excessive in comparison to the charges levelled against the workman, reduced the back wages to 50%. 3. Respondent-workman was appointed as a Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant herein) on 26.9.1991. Respondent was conducting the bus on Kalsi- Chhani route, which was checked and, on inspection it was found that out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-cause notice submitted by the respondent, Punishing Authority passed the detailed order, removing the respondent from service. Balance salary for the period of suspension was also forfeited. 5. Respondent raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Dehradun for adjudication:- Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ravi Ram Singh, Conductor by the employers from 31.07.1999 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, to which benefit/compensation the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent? 6. Both the parties filed written statement, rejoinders and documents before the Labour Court. 7. Respondent did not press t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent had confined his case only to the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer as well as the quantum of punishment. Therefore, since the respondent had not challenged the correctness, legality or validity of the enquiry conducted, it was not open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding the misconduct committed by the respondent. This Court in a number of judgments has held that the punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds; and the Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman. That, there is nothing wrong in the employer losing confidence or faith in such an employee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
