Summary
The Court restored removal of a bus conductor for collecting fares without issuing tickets. After the domestic inquiry was found defective, the employer proved misconduct before the Industrial Tribunal through the inspecting officer. The material aspects of his testimony, including obstruction when he tried to record passenger statements, were unchallenged. The Tribunal’s contrary finding rested on unsupported demands for passenger particulars and an FIR. A defective inquiry did not itself compel reinstatement, and absence of criminal proceedings did not prevent proof of disciplinary misconduct.
Issues
- Whether misconduct could be proved before the Tribunal after the domestic inquiry was held defective.
- Whether the inspector’s evidence could be rejected for lack of passenger statements or a criminal complaint.
Provisions considered
- Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The adjudicator had to assess misconduct on the evidence properly led before it after the defective inquiry, rather than direct reinstatement merely because of that defect. (¶¶ 5-6, 11-12)
Held
- A defective domestic inquiry did not automatically entitle the workman to reinstatement. Subject to the established procedure and a timely request, the employer could prove misconduct before the adjudicator and the workman could lead rebuttal evidence. The employer had in fact led such evidence here. (¶¶ 3, 5-6)
- The inspector testified that seventeen passengers had paid fares but received no tickets and that the conductor obstructed efforts to record their statements. Those material aspects, including inspection itself, were not disputed in cross-examination. The Tribunal had no evidentiary basis to reject them as it did. (¶¶ 3-4, 11)
- Failure to record passenger names, addresses or statements did not undermine the established inspection account in these circumstances. The Court rejected a rigid insistence on passenger examination and emphasised rational assessment of relevant evidence in disciplinary matters. (¶ 7-11)
- The inspector’s failure to lodge an FIR over the conductor’s conduct did not negate disciplinary proof. Institution or absence of criminal proceedings did not determine whether misconduct was proved. The Tribunal’s reasons were perverse and the High Court had wrongly sustained them. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Employer’s appeal allowed; Tribunal and High Court orders directing reinstatement and partial back wages set aside, and removal order dated 14 December 2001 restored.