CWP No.9856 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9856 of 1990 Date of Decision: 29.4.2010 Sarup Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed assailing the Award dated 12.4.1989 passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was working as Conductor with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. On 25.2.1982, petitioner was on duty as a Conductor in a Bus going from Bathinda to Amritsar. Bus was checked by Nanak Chand and Nand Lal, Chief Inspectors, Balwant Singh, Inspector, and Gian Singh, Adda Conductor and it was found that petitioner had not CWP No.9856 of 1990 -2- issued tickets to 9 passengers. Again Bus was checked on the same day by Gurmail Singh, Chief Inspector and Gurbachan singh and Niranjan Singh, Inspectors and it was found that petitioner despite of charging fair failed to issue tickets to 3 passengers traveling from Faridkot to Chand Baja. On 6.3.1982, Bus No.3546 was checked by the Inspector Hans Raj at Octroi Post, Hissar and he was found to have charged more fair from the 6 travelers traveling from Fatehabad to Hissar and had issued tickets of the lesser value. The department issued show cause notice to him and in the departmental proceedings, petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from the service. On the reference, matter was examined by the Labour Court, Bathinda. Vide impugned order dated 12.4.1989, learned Labour Court found that inquiry was held against the petitioner in accordance with law and there was no illegality or irregularity committed in the departmental inquiry. All the charges were found to be proved by the Labour Court also. Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner-workman. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. On three occasions, the petitioner was found allowing the passengers to travel without any ticket and had once issued the ticket of lesser value despite of charging full fair, by three different teams. This conduct of the petitioner-workman is sufficient to hold him guilty of serious misconduct resulting in dismissal from the service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that CWP No.9856 of 1990 -3- instance is of 20 years old, hence, lenient view may be taken against the petitioner. I am not inclined to entertain the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 29th April, 2010 JUDGE ashish