IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 726 OF 2001 Mohd. Salim Zaidi …..Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 3. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 22.4.1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 432 of 1991. 2. A dispute was referred, vide notification No. 11497 =501/Dehradun – C.P. /208/91 dated 23.11.91 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 432 /1991. The reference was made in the following terms: “Whether the termination of services of Workman Mohd. Saleem Zaidi –Conductor with effect from 2.6.1990 is unjustified and / or illegal, if yes, to what benefit/relief the concerned employee is entitled to and to what extent?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport 2 Corporation. He was given a charge sheet on 9th march, 1988, wherein it was alleged that on 18.2.1988 during the inspection of the concerned Bus at Mussoori Dehradun Road, nine passengers out of twenty one passengers were found having back dated tickets and during the Inquiry, the said Conductor issued two tickets to a passengers bearing no. 24123 and 24132 immediately and Inquiry Officer took statement of the said person. Against the workman / petitioner, a departmental inquiry was conducted and a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, but being unsatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 12.6.1990. 4. The case of the workman / petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer did not take into consideration the evidence specially statements of the witnesses properly, and after finding that the Inquiry Board have not presented the case properly, the report of the Inquiry Board has been relied upon. He has prayed for being reinstated in service. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court has passed an award dated 22nd April, 1995 by holding that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has not exercised its power under Section 6-A (2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by modifying the order of removal from service to that of some lesser punishment. 3 7. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has relied upon the inquiry report and the statement of the witnesses as well as evidence available on record. Thereafter, the Labour Court has held that looking to the gravity of the charges leveled on the petitioner, the punishment of removal of services is perfectly justified. Thereafter, the Labour Court has terminated the services of the petitioner. 8. Since the Labour Court has thoroughly examined the matter and thereafter, passed the award, therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court has not fell into error while passing the said award and the same does not call for any interference. The award passed by the court below is affirmed. 9. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour