IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.09.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.647 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013 A.Murugesan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Ramakrishna Road, Salem.
2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri.
3. The Assistant Manager (Audit), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order No.157/5067/G1/T.P/TNSTC/2012 dated 06.12.2012 passed by the third respondent, quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to treat the period from 13.12.2012 till the petitioner given work, as duty for all purposes with all other attendant and consequential benefits together with interest and award costs.
For Petitioner .. Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Respondents .. Mr.P.Paramasivadoss ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order No.157/5067/G1/T.P/TNSTC/2012 dated 06.12.2012 passed by the third respondent, quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to treat the period from 13.12.2012 till the petitioner given work, as duty for all purposes with all other attendant and consequential benefits together with interest and award costs.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the respondent Corporation working as a Conductor from 23.04.1995. On 25.11.2012, the petitioner was assigned duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 29 N 2301, which was plying between Dharmapuri and Bangalore. The petitioner was issued with 85 ticket bundles both used and unused new bundles. On the return trip from Bangalore after reaching Dharmapuri at 12.30 p.m. on the same day, the petitioner has to go once again to Bangalore at 01.40 p.m. However, the Divisional Manager, Dharmapuri instructed the petitioner to proceed from Dharmapuri to Salem in between his trip from Dharmapuri to Bangalore. In view of the sudden change of trips undertaken by the petitioner, the petitioner had kept the unused new ticket bundles in his cash bag.
3. In view of the change in the bus route in between two trips from Dharmapuri to Bangalore and back, the petitioner was entrusted with several ticket bundles of various denominations like Rs.30/-, Rs.40/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.60/-, Rs.70/- etc., After finishing one trip, when the petitioner came back to the time office, to the shock of the petitioner, he did not find his bag where he left and found the same had been stolen by some unknown persons. Inspite of his search, he could not locate the bag containing ticket bundles.
4. In the above circumstances, on 26.11.2012, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Dharmapuri regarding loss of tickets and personal belongings of the petitioner. A complaint was registered and community service register (CSR) was issued. After investigation by the police, reports were submitted on 04.12.2012 and 13.12.2012. These facts cumulatively were informed to the Branch Manager of the respondent Corporation. Inspite of the above position, the petitioner was not allowed to join duty on the following day on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of ticket bundles. Since he was not allowed to join duty, the petitioner had made representations on 19.12.2012 and 22.12.2012 requesting to permit him to join work. In response to the representations, he was informed that the first respondent, had by circular dated 04.12.2012, instructed that if the ticket bundles are lost by the conductors while they were on work, the value of those lost tickets should be paid by the conductor concerned and they should be given work only after the payment of the value of the lost ticket books. As far as the petitioner was concerned, the administration valued the loss of tickets to Rs.9,920/-. The petitioner was directed to make the said payment and only after payment is made, he would be allowed to join duty. According to the petitioner, no written order has been issued, refusing work to the petitioner. It was on the basis of oral instruction by the officials of the depot. The petitioner, therefore, had no option except to approach this Court, seeking intervention of this Court.
5. Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue is directly covered by Clause 17 of 12(3) settlement dated 29.08.2005 in and by which the Corporation had accepted and agreed that no recovery will be made from the conductors towards the value of those ticket books which were lost. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the agreement is still in force and the same was applied wherever there is a loss of ticket bundles, for which no recovery action was initiated. 12(3) settlement between the workers and the Corporation in respect of the said issue has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Corporation.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further draw the attention of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court has time and again held that no recovery could be made from the conductors, if ticket bundles were lost. He would draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 23.06.2011 in W.P.No.9686 of 2011. The learned Judge of this Court, after following the Division Bench decision, directed the return of the recovery amount from the conductor concerned. The operative portion of the order is extracted below:
“4.In the light of the said categorical pronouncement made by the Division Bench particularly in paragraphs 4 and 5 holding that the said demand is contrary to Clause 29 of the Settlement and the fact that the similar settlement is now in force, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The amount already recovered to the tune of Rs.5,693/- is directed to be returned to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
7. The said decision of the learned single Judge has been confirmed in W.A.No.1122 of 2012 dated 18.07.2012. Learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to yet another decision of this Court in Management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Palanisamy ((2008) 1 MLJ 224), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that no amount can be recovered from the bus conductor when there was loss of bus ticket books not due to any negligence on the part of the conductor. These decisions squarely cover the case in favour of the petitioner.
8. Mr.P.Paramasivadoss, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner on the ground that unless the loss is compensated by the conductor concerned, there would not be any responsibility on the part of any conductor for keeping ticket book in safe custody. However, he would not dispute the settlement arrived at between the workers and the management in this regard. He would also have no quarrel with the legal proposition laid down by this Court both by the learned single Judge and by the Division Benches as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. In view of the admitted position that the issue is directly covered by the aforesaid decisions and also in view of the binding agreement between the workmen and the management, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition. The impugned order dated 06.12.2012 is therefore set aside. The respondents are also directed to treat the period of the petitioner’s non-employment as duty for the aforesaid reasons and pay the admissible wages for the said period. The respondents are directed to pass orders in compliance with these directions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.09.2017 Index:Yes/No mmi To
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Ramakrishna Road, Salem.
2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri.
3. The Assistant Manager (Audit), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mmi W.P.No.647 of 2013 22.09.2017