JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by U. P. State Road Transport Corporation-employer challenges the award dated 6.1.1997 passed by the Labour Court (1), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1995. The State Government referred the following dispute under Section 4 (k) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh lqjs'k pUnz ik.Ms; iq= Jh eFkqjk izlkn ik.Ms;] in ifjpkyd vkSjs;k fMiks dks vkns'k fnukad 26-8-1989 }kjk fn;k x;k n.M vuqfpr [email protected] voS/kkfud gS\ ;fn gk] rks lEcfU/k Jfed D;k [email protected]"k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
2. The labour court on receipt of the aforesaid reference, issued notice to the parties. Parties put in their appearance, exchanged their pleadings and adduced the evidence. Labour court by its award held that according to the regulations framed by the employer, the penalty imposed on the workman concerned is a penalty, which is not contemplated under the regulations governing the service conditions of the workman concerned with the employer. It has also been found by the labour court that since the employers have not produced the tickets, which were said to have been resold by the workman concerned. The workman was denied opportunity of defending himself.
3. Learned counsel for the corporation-employer, Shri M. M. Sahai placed the award before me and also referred to the regulations, which govern the service conditions with the employer. Regulation 63, provides as under :
"63. Penalties.--The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an employee, namely-
Minor Penalties (1) Censure ;
(2) Withholding of increment ;
(3) Stoppage at an efficiency bar otherwise than on the ground of unfitness to cross the bar ;
(4) Recovery from pay or deposit at his credit the whole or the part of a pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order.
Major Penalties (5) Reduction to a lower grade or post to a lower stage in a time scale ;
(6) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further appointment ;
(7) Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for further appointment."
4. Regulation 64 which is reproduced below provides the procedure to be followed by the employer in case of departmental proceedings :
"64. Procedure for awarding major penalties.--(1) Without prejudice to the right to terminate the service in accordance with Regulation 29 no order (other than order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal court) or dismissal, removal or reduction in a rank which includes, reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale but excludes the reversion to a lower post of a person who is officiating on a higher post, shall be passed against an employee unless he has been afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself, (2) The ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which along with the evidence proposed to be relied upon in support of the charge shall be communicated to the person charged and he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to examine or cross-examine any witness and whether he desires to be heard in person. He shall also be informed that, in case he does not file a written statement of his defence, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and orders will be passed (ex parte).
(3) If the employee desires or the Enquiry Officer considers it necessary, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence shall be heard as the Enquiry Officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call or examine any witness.
(4) The proceedings shall contain sufficient record of evidence and the statement of findings and grounds thereof. The Enquiry Officer may also separately from the proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the penalty to be imposed. The proceedings and the record shall be forwarded to the appointing authority.
(5) The appointing authority shall pass such orders as he considers proper on the basis of record and report.
5. Regulation 63 (5) clearly provides the penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post to a lower stage in a time scale.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation Sri M. M. Sahai contended that the award of the labour court suffers from manifest error of law in as much as the observation made by labour court that the penally imposed on the workman could not have been awarded according to Regulation 63, is not sustainable in as much as said observation/finding, is patently perverse and this further demonstrates that the labour court has completely misread the regulation and thus it requires to be rectified by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by Apex Court in the case in JT 2002 (7) SC 631.
7. Thus, confronted with the aforesaid argument learned counsel for the workman could not be able to point out any defect in the argument.
8. The next contention regarding the finding that no opportunity was given to the workman concerned within the meaning of Regulation 64 in as much as the tickets which are said to have been resold by the workman who was conductor, have not been produced before the enquiry officer, is also not sustainable for two reasons, firstly, that at no point of time the workman is said to have demanded that these resold tickets should have been produced before the enquiry officer and secondly once the workman accepts charge that the charge was regarding the resale of tickets which were earlier sold, clearly means that the tickets once sold are resold to the passengers, must be in possession of the passengers and, therefore, it is not possible to be in possession of the employer. The employer have framed the charge on the basis of the entries made by the workman in the way-bill which is filled in by the workman regarding tickets sold which clearly indicates the serial number of tickets which were already sold on the previous day.
9. In this view of the matter, the award of the labour court cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above.
10. The writ petition is allowed.