Holding

The dismissal of the bus conductor was justified and should not have been set aside; however, since he had superannuated, he is not entitled to back wages, only to retirement benefits.

Summary

The respondent, a bus conductor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, was found in a domestic inquiry to have issued tickets of Rs 1.75 instead of the correct fare of Rs 2.25 for 35 passengers, thereby short‑charging each passenger. He was dismissed, but the Labour Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the prosecution had not proved he actually collected the higher fare, and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The High Court affirmed this award. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the conduct, noting the conductor’s 22‑year service and 36 prior similar offences, and applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to infer dishonesty or gross negligence, concluding that such conduct amounted to gross misconduct and the dismissal was justified. However, because the conductor had superannuated in the interim, the Court declined to restore back wages, limiting his entitlement to retirement benefits. The appeal was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether short‑charging of fare by a bus conductor constitutes gross misconduct justifying dismissal.
Whether the Labour Court erred in setting aside the dismissal on the ground that the amount actually collected was not proved.
Whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to infer dishonesty in the conductor’s conduct.
Whether a superannuated employee is entitled to back wages after a reinstatement order is set aside.

Subjects

labour lawmisconductfiduciary dutybus conductorshort chargingdismissalreinstatementback wagessuperannuationres ipsa loquitur

Judgment

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD A
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
B.S. HULLIKA TTI

JANUARY 22, 2001
B
[B.N. I}IRPAL AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.]

Labour Law

State Road Transport Corporation-Bus Conductor-Responsibility of- C
Held he acts in fiduciary capacity-Must collect correct/are and deposit it-
Knowingly not collecting the fare or short-charging is misconduct.

Road Transport Corporation-Bus Conductor-Short-charging-Issuing
tickets of less denomination than fare charged-Domestic enquiry-
Dismissal-Dismissa/ order set aside-Labour Court and High Court directed D
reinstatement with full back wages-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held
Conductor had earlier been found guilty as many as 36 times-The principle
a/res ipsa loquitur, namely, thefaczs speak/or themselves, is clearly applicable
in the instant case-Act of Conductor was either dishonest or was so grossly
negligent-He was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action E
or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-
Corporation-Order of dismissal should not have been set aside-However
in view of the fact that in the meantime Conductor had superannuated his·
reinstatement order not set aside.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 784 of2001. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.99 of the Kamataka High Court
in W.A. No. 4251 of 1998.

R.S. Hegde and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
G
S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R Nath, Ms. Lali Mohini Bhat and Shiv Kumar
Suri for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Special Leave granted.
H
487
488 SUPREME COURT REPORT.~
, ..-
(2001) l S.C.R.

·A. In the instant case, the respondent was a Bus Conductor working with
the appellant-Corporation. A domestic inquiry was held in which it was
·~
alleged that he had collected at a· particular trip of the bus Rs. 2.25 from each
of the 35 passengers but had issued tickets of the denomi~ation of Rs. 1.75
only. ·
--- .
B As a result of the domestic inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from
service. Reference was made to the Labour Court which came to the conclusion
that the domestic inquiry was not fair or proper. Opportunity was given to
the appellant to produce evidence which it did. ·

After recording the evidence, the Labour Court by the impugned award
C came to the conclusion that the allegation that the Conductor had issued
tickets of Rs: 1.75 instead of Rs. 2.25 was proved but it had not been proved
that he had collected the amount of Rs. 2.25 from the passengers. The Labour
Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement with
·full back wages. On a writ petition being filed by the appellant-Corporation,
D the Single J~dge dismissed the same after noting that the Labour Court had·
awarded 50 percent of the back wages with reinstatement Realising that this
.was a mistake, the Single Judge rectified the same and ordered reinstatement
with full back· wages. The letters patent appeal w£s dismissed. Hence,. this ·
appeal by special leave.

E On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is
..+. . .
evident that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from
as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been. in
·service as a Conductor. for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he
did· not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Further-
F more, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account
the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times
on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ·ipsa /oquitur, namely,
the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case.
Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only
be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest
G or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained
3s a Conductor because such action or· inaction of his is bound to result in
· financial .loss to the appellant-Corporation. ·°1
It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on
checking it is fund that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to
H a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued

....
K.S.R.T.C v: B.S. HULLIKATTI 489
tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the ,correct fare to be A
charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct
. fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. They act
in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly
they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.

In our opinion, the order of dismissal should not have been set aside, B
but we are informed that in the meantime the respondent has already
superannuated. We, therefore, on the special facts of this case, do not set
aside the order of reinstatement, but direct that the respondent would not be
entitled to any back wages at all but he would be entitled to the retiral
benefits.
c
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terriis.

T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.