IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 368 (M/S) of 2005 (Old No. 9474/1988) U.P.S.R.T.C. …Petitioner Versus Amba Dutt Padaliya & others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Ashish Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. The petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court, by which the workman was reinstated with 25% back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the respondent workman was working as a conductor in the U.P.S.R.T.C. and, at the relevant moment of time, had issued tickets to the passengers and had received the money, which was kept in the sachet. While the vehicle was in the motion, the checking team stopped the bus and conducted an inspection and found that even though the tickets had been issued to the passengers and payment was received, the entry of the issuance of the tickets was not recorded by the workman conductor in the way bill. On this basis, it was presumed that the conductor deliberately did not enter the number of tickets so issued in the waybill for ulterior purpose. It was alleged that while all this was going on, the workman conductor also snatched the waybill from the checking team. The aforesaid two misconducts resulted in the issuance of the charge sheet. A domestic enquiry was initiated, in which charges were proved, on the basis of which, the disciplinary authority passed an order of the dismissal of the 2 workman. The workman respondent, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute. The terms of the reference order under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act is somewhat like this: “Whether the employer was justified in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 25.8.1977? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to? On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, the Labour Court held that there was no monetary loss caused to the Corporation and the fact that an entry was not made in the waybill did not mean that there was an intention on the part of the workman to defraud the Corporation. The Labour Court, accordingly, directed reinstatement of the workman with 25% back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the present writ petition. An interim order was passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman. The back wages was, however, stayed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman has died and his heirs have been substituted. In the light of the subsequent events, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that it was imperative for the conductor to record the issuance of the tickets in the waybill immediately after the tickets were issued, which had not been done. This action of the workman conductor was violative of the Rules and Regulations framed by the Corporation. Assuming this fact is correct and that the conductor had violated the Rules and Regulations, still it does not mean that there was an intention on 3 the part of the workman to embezzle the amount and defraud the Corporation. Such presumption raised by the Corporation and thereby terminating the petitioner on this presumption is wholly farfetched and does not commensurate with the misconduct. In the light of the aforesaid, coupled with the fact that the workman has now died, this Court does not find any error in the impugned award. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 07-12-2011 Salim/