(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli dated 26.09.2024 in O.P.Industrial Dispute No.14 of 2023 CNR No.TNTL03-000017-2023 confirming the punishment imposed to the petitioner in and by the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in No.D9626-Sa18- Onabi-thanaaboka-thili-18 dated 20.09.2019 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant the petitioner all the consequential monetary and service benefits from the date when it was due.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli dated 26.09.2024 in O.P.Industrial Dispute No.14 of 2023 CNR No.TNTL03-000017-2023 confirming the punishment imposed to the petitioner in and by the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in No.D9626-Sa18-Onabithanaaboka- thili-18 dated 20.09.2019 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant the petitioner all the consequential monetary and service benefits from the date when it was due.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation. On 13.09.2018, while he was on duty in Bus bearing Registration No.TN-72- N-1407 plying from Tirunelveli to Alangulam, the bus was subjected to a surprise inspection by the Checking Inspectors. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.30/- towards transportation charges for a flower basket carried in the bus without issuing the requisite luggage ticket. It was further found that the petitioner was in possession of excess cash of Rs.58/-, which had not been declared by him before taking charge of duty as mandated under the Standing Orders of the Corporation. On the basis of the said allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A domestic enquiry was conducted after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Upon the charges being proved, the disciplinary authority, by proceedings dated 20.09.2019, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner's Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in O.P. (Industrial Dispute) No.14 of 2023. The Labour Court, by its award dated 26.09.2024, confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had admitted that he collected Rs.30/- towards transportation charges for the flower basket without issuing the luggage ticket. However, according to him, the omission was purely inadvertent and there was no dishonest intention to misappropriate the amount. It was further submitted that the excess cash of Rs. 58/- was also not deliberately suppressed and the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to declare the same before taking charge of duty. The learned counsel further submitted that for the aforesaid lapses, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is highly disproportionate. According to him, the Labour Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to examine the proportionality of the punishment and mechanically confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority. Hence, the impugned award and the punishment order are liable to be interfered with.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the misconduct committed by the petitioner stands clearly established in the domestic enquiry. The petitioner admittedly collected Rs.30/- for carrying a flower basket without issuing the requisite luggage ticket, thereby causing loss of revenue to the Corporation. The misconduct was detected during a surprise inspection conducted by the Checking Inspectors and the statements of the petitioner as well as the relevant witnesses were recorded. It was further submitted that a charge memorandum was issued, a fair and proper domestic enquiry was conducted by affording full opportunity to the petitioner, and only thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of excess cash of Rs. 58/-, which had not been declared before commencing duty. Under the Standing Orders of the Corporation, every Conductor is bound to declare the personal cash in his possession before taking charge of duty. The petitioner admittedly violated the said mandatory requirement. Therefore, both the charges stood independently proved. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Labour Court, after independently appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were supported by evidence and that the punishment imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Hence, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on two charges, namely, (i) collection of Rs.30/- towards transportation charges for a flower basket without issuing the requisite luggage ticket and (ii) failure to declare Rs.58/- excess cash before taking charge of duty. The domestic enquiry culminated in a finding that both the charges stood proved. The Labour Court has also independently examined the records and concurred with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority.

9. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and that the Labour Court failed to exercise its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, this Court finds that the petitioner has admitted the collection of Rs.30/- without issuing the requisite luggage ticket. The failure to issue tickets after collecting the fare is undoubtedly a serious misconduct affecting the financial interest of the Corporation. Equally, the petitioner admittedly failed to declare the excess cash of Rs.58/- before commencing duty in violation of the Standing Orders governing the service conditions of the employees.

10. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence or the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, interference is not warranted. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the domestic enquiry or violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are based on acceptable evidence and have been independently affirmed by the Labour Court. Having regard to the nature of the proved misconduct, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect cannot be said to be so disproportionate as to warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

11. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.