Reference no: EM132984591

A nationalised road transport corporation introduced an incentive scheme for the bus crew (staff) so as to provide better transport facilities to the maximum number of passengers as there was no other transport agency operating on the same route. Moreover, this would increase the revenue of the corporation. In accordance with this scheme, the corporate fixed a certain amount of the level of revenue to each route as base revenue. If the revenue earned by a particulartrip was equal to the base revenue. the conductor and driver of that bus would be eligible to receive the incentive amount of one per cent of the base revenue. If the revenue exceeded the base amount. the conductor and driver could get higher per cent on incremental revenue as incent1ve bonus. In a bid to take advantage of this incentive scheme, the bus conductors of almost all the routes started to overload the buses exceeding double the seating capacity (i.e.. 49 seating capacity plus 49 standing passengers). This scheme had been functioning successfully, benefiting the passengers, the bus crew and particularly the corporation, as the cost of operation of the bus did not increase in proportion to the increase in revenue. Mr. 'A' had been working as a conductor in Z depot of the road transport corporation. He was on duty on 19th September 83 on a route (R to K passenger bus). He had overloaded the bus almost to a double of the seating capacity. Mr. X- a passenger of that bus did not purchase a ticket despite repeated enquiries of the conductor, because the heavy overloaded condition of the bus and his illness. The conductor was unable to count the passengers because of the overload. In this state, the ticket checking officers stopped the bus, verified the tickets of all the passengers and found that Mr. X had not purchased a ticket. They blamed the conductor for not issuing the ticket and the passenger for not buying the ticket. Then Mr. X in a written appeal to the checking staff stated that he had not purchased the ticket despiterepeatedenquiries by the conductor because he was ill and the bus was heavilyoverloaded. He requested. therefore, not to take any action against the conductor. The ticket checkingstaff collected the ticket fare and penalty from Mr. X and suspended the conductor ignoring the writtenrequestmade by Mr. X. Moreover, the repeated requests made by the co-passengers of that bus was not paid any heed to. The suspension of the conductor created an uproar among all the bus crew of the depot (Z). The operating staff (conductors and drivers)held a meetingon 19th September itself and resolved to limit the intake of passengers to the seatingcapacity. This decisionwas implemented with immediate effect.Consequentiy, most of the commuters were unable to leave for their destination. Passengers of almost all the routes experienced many difficulties while travelling. Average revenue per day of "Z' bus depot declined to Rs. 75 000 from Rs. 1.00.000between20th and 27th September. The suspension of Mr. A at Z bus depot served as the potential "fuel" for the staff, working in other depots to launch a work-to-rule agitation. Viewingthe situation, the ofticials of the corporation re-examined the whole case and withdrew the suspension order served on Mr. A on 27th September 1983.

Q1. Was the conductor guilty of negligence of duty.

2. Should the corporation officials ignore the pleas and evidencesof the passengerstravellingin that bus while imposinga penalty.

3. Should a genuine mistake call for the drastic punishment of suspension.

4 Should the disciplinary rules, be appliedfor the sake of mere discipline or should they contribute to the goals and objectives of a corporation.