Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Divisional Controller of a transport corporation, challenged an award dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 394 of 2020. The respondent, Ashok J Kachiya, was a conductor employed by the petitioner. On 30.05.2016, while on duty on the Kawad–Gadshisha route, a checking squad found that five passengers had paid a total fare of Rs. 1,090/- (Rs. 218/- each), but no tickets were issued. Consequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated, and the respondent was found guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The respondent's departmental first appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, partly allowed the reference and modified the punishment to stoppage of one increment with permanent effect. The petitioner filed the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, and 227 of the Constitution read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to quash the award. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act by interfering with the quantum of punishment, which was proportionate to the misconduct. The respondent, though served, did not appear. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, examined the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. It noted that the High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the Tribunal's decision is perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the Tribunal had considered the facts and circumstances and had exercised its discretion under Section 11A to modify the punishment. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not perverse and did not warrant interference. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Punishment Modification - Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Scope of Tribunal's Power - The Industrial Tribunal, under Section 11A, has the discretion to modify the punishment imposed by the employer if it is disproportionate to the misconduct. The court held that the Tribunal's reduction of punishment from stoppage of two increments to one increment with permanent effect was not perverse and did not call for interference under Articles 226 and 227. (Paras 1, 5-6) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the Tribunal's decision is perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity in the impugned award. (Paras 5-6) C) Industrial Law - Misconduct - Conductor - Non-Issuance of Tickets - The respondent-conductor was found to have collected fare from five passengers without issuing tickets, constituting misconduct. The employer imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect, which was modified by the Tribunal. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in modifying the punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect to stoppage of one increment with permanent effect, and whether such modification warrants interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned award dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 394 of 2020 is upheld.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 11A
- Power of Tribunal to modify punishment
- Scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227
- Proportionality of punishment
- Misconduct by conductor
- Non-issuance of tickets
