9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging dismissal and reinstatement with back wages. Analysis: The appellant-corporation challenged a judgment confirming the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service. The respondent, a conductor, was found in possession of unaccounted money over and above ticket amounts. The appellant conducted a departmental inquiry and dismissed the respondent. The Labour Court found the inquiry fair but deemed the dismissal disproportionate due to lack of evidence from passengers. The High Court upheld the decision, reducing back wages to 75%. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal citing a delay and lack of merit. The appellant argued that examining passengers was impractical as misconduct often surfaces post-trip. Prior misconduct instances were cited. The Supreme Court referenced precedents emphasizing loss of confidence as grounds for dismissal in misappropriation cases. The Court rejected the lower courts' reliance on passenger evidence, citing evidence from the inspector as sufficient. The Court reinstated the dismissal order, overturning previous decisions, including the Division Bench's. This judgment highlights the importance of evidence in domestic inquiries and the discretion of disciplinary authorities in awarding dismissal as a punishment. It clarifies that loss of confidence due to misappropriation justifies dismissal, emphasizing the need for objective evaluation in such cases. The Court's decision underscores the significance of evidence provided by inspectors and the inapplicability of passenger statements as a condition precedent. The judgment sets a precedent for cases involving misconduct and misappropriation in the context of reinstatement and back wages, emphasizing the employer's right to dismiss for loss of confidence.
|
