NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.versusH.H. PUJAR

                          [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1149


         NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT                            A
                           CORPN.
                              V.
                         H.H. PUJAR
               (Civil Appeal No.4520 of 2008)
                                                                        B
                             JULY 18, 2008
         [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

            Labour Laws - Dismissal from service - Of bus conduc-
     tor - For the misconduct of not issuing tickets to some pas-       c
     sengers - Labour court as well as High Court setting aside
     order of dismissal on the ground that ticket-less passengers
     were not examined - On appeal, held: Order of dismissal jus-
     tified - Non-examination of passengers is inconsequential in
     view of the facts that proceedings of domestic enquiry were
                                                                        0
 y   fair and that the conductor admitted having not issued the tick-
     ets - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10 (4-A).
           The bus, on which the respondent-conductor was
     commissioning, was intercepted by the checking staff. It
     was fond that the respondent had not issued tickets to E
     20 out .of 136 passengers. In domestic _enquiry he was
     found guilty and consequently dismissed from service.
     Labour Court though held that the domestic enquiry was
     fair, set aside the order of dismissal and direct his rein-
•    statement with conformity of service and back wages, on F
     the ground that cash bag of the respondent and the ticket-
     less passengers were not checked. Single Judge of High
     Court confirmed the order except the direction for pay-
     ment of back wages. Writ appeal was dismissed as not
     maintainable. Hence the present appeal.
                                                                        G
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
,,
         HELD: Since fairness of the proceedings was con-
     ceded and the respondent admitted that he had not is-
                                   1149                                 H
     1150       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A    sued tickets to 20 passengers, non-examination of the
     passengers is really of no consequence·. The order of dis-
     missal passed by the Corporation is to operate. [Paras 9
     and 10] [1153-E,F & G]
        State of Haryana and Anr v. Rattan Singh 1977 (2) SCC
B. 491; Divisional Controller KSRTC (NWKSRTC) v. A. T Mane
   2004 (8) S~ALE 308- relied on
                  .   .         ..
                        Case Law Reference
            1977 (2) SCC 491 Relied on Para 7
C·
            2004 (8) SCALE 308 Relied on Para 8
          CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4520
     of.2008.
          From the final Order and Judgment dated 21.10.2005 and
0
     21.6.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P.
     No. 17519/2000 (L-KSRTC) and W.A. No. 3830/2005 (L-
     KSRTC) respec!ively
         R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, J.K. Nayyar., Ashwani Garg,_
E    Rahul Tyagi and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.
            }he Judgmentofthe Court was delivered by
         · Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. ·challenge in this appeal·is to the judgment of a Division
F    Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the writ appeal no.3830/        ~
     2005 dismissing appeal against the order of learned Sing!e
     Judge in Writ Petition No.17519/2000. The writ appeal was
     dismissed as not maintainable and, therefore, the challenge in
     the present is essential to the order of learned Single Judge.
G
            3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
           Respondent-Conductor was commissioning as such in Bus
     No. F-16 on 15.9.1993 when the bus was intercepted by the
     checking staff. It was found that the respondent had not issued
H    tickets to 20 out of 136 passengers. Appellant conducted do-
                NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT 1151
     ~          CORPN. v. H.H. PUJAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         mestic enquiry which found him guilty. Consequently, he was ·A
         dismissed from service vide order dated 3.4.1995. The same
         was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court in-
         voking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
     ,   short the 'Act'). The Labour Court held that the domestic in-
-r
         quiry was fair and proper on the basis of the memorandum filed B
         by the respondent conceding to the fairness of the domestic
         inquiry. However, the Labour Court set aside the order of dis-
         missal and directed reinstatement of respondent with full back
         wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
         The basis for this order was non-checking of cash bag of the             c
         respondent and non-examination of ticketless passengers. The
         order was challenged before the High Court. By order dated
         21.10.2005, the learned Single Judge held that the order was
         correct so far as setting aside dismissal order is concerned,
         direction for reinstatement and continuity of service and conse-
;k                                                                        D
         quential benefits. However, the direction relating to back wages
         was set aside. The writ appeal as noted above, was dismissed
         on the ground that the same was not maintainable ...
               4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
         submitted that the primary reason indicated by the Labour Court to       E
         hold that the order of dismissal was bad, was the alleged non-
         examination of the passengers to whom the respondent had not
         issued the tickets. It also did not find any substance in the stand of
         the Corporation that earlier also on 12 occasions for similar charges
).       punishments were awarded but the respondent did not improve              F
         his conduct. The High Court found that the conclusions of the Labour
         Court were correct. It was noted that if more passengers were car-
         ried within the permissible limit, it was fault of the Corporation who
         did not took timely reformative and remedial m'easures. ·
              5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view G
         expressed by the High Court is clearly contrary to the law laid
         down by this Court. Further, when the respondent himself con-
         ceded to the fairness of the proceedings and the fact that he
         had not issued tickets to twenty passengers, their non-exami-
         nation is of no consequences.                                     H
    1152       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A         6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
    spite of service of notice.
        7. In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977 (2)
    sec 491), it was, inter alia, held as follows:
B          "4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and ,,.._
           sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence
           Act may not apply. All materials which are logically
           probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no
           allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable
c          nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities
           and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating
           such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly
           speaking not relevant Linder the Indian Evidence Act. For
           this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text
           books, although we have been taken through case-law and
D
           other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of "'
           a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous
           materials or considerations and observance of rules of
           natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if
           perversity or arbitrarine.ss, bias or surrender of
E          independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached,
           such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be
           held good. However, the courts below misdirected
           themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had
           come in and gone out should be chased and brought before
F          the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The _.,
           'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred,
           based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence
           does not go to that extent nor does the passage from
           Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point
G          is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -
           not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular
           court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men '
           of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed
           in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by
H          a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any
                 NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT 1153
                 CORPN. v. H.H. PUJAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

             evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the A
             court to look into because it amounts to an error of law
             apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the
             evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad, is
             some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled
             against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold B
             that the order is invalid on that ground.
             5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non-
             compliance with the departmental instruction that statements
             of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These
             are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in      C
             the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the
             statements but the passengers declined., the psychology of
             the latter in such circumstances being understandable,
             although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely
 ..          because statements of passengers were ·not recorded the              D
             order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation
             of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony
             is a matter not for the court but for the Administrative Tribunal.
             In con- clusion, we do not think the courts below were right
             in overturning the finding of the domestic tribunal."                E
            8. The view was reiterated in Divisional Controller KSRTC
       . (NWKSRTC) v. A. T Mane (2004 (8) SCALE 308).
              9. As rightly contended by the appellant since fairness of
,i..    the proceedings was conceded and the respondent admitted                  F
        that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers, their non-ex-
        amination is really of no consequence.
              10. In view of what has been stated by this Court in Rattan
         Singh's case (supra) and in A. T Mane's case (supra) award of
         the Labour Court and impugned order of the High Court cannot G
         be maintained and are set aside. The order of dismissal passed
       · by the Corporation is to operate.

             11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.

        K.K.T.                                              Appeal allowed.       H