COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 2531/2001 (Old No. 19762/1998) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation …….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun & Other …..Respondents Sri V.K. Bist, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. None for the workman/respondent no. 2. 4 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. My means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 2.1.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in adjudication case no. 56 of 1996, whereby workman has been reinstated in service with fifty per cent back wages and punishment of termination awarded to the workman/respondent no. 2 has been reduced to stoppage of only two increments without any cumulative effect. The impugned award is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the workman Sri Jitendra Kumar/respondent no. 2 was working under the petitioner on the post of Conductor since April, 1991. Nine charges were framed against him vide chargesheet dated 13.10.1993. The charges against the workman were that on various dates during the course of checking few passengers were found to be travelling without ticket and that on 13.10.1992 five passengers were found to be travelling without having proper valid tickets. Domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman and the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the workman to be proved. The workman replied to the show cause notice and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered for termination of the services of workman vide his order dated 1.11.1994. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Under these facts and circumstances, the following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its workman Sri Jitendra Kumar S/O Sri Nanak Chand with effect from 1.11.1994 was legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. The Labour Court framed the points for determination and held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper, After taking into consideration all the documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record, the Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding that although some passengers were found travelling without ticket on various dates during the course of checking but workman was not solely responsible for that inasmuch as some passengers were drunk and they did not purchase the tickets from the workman/conductor. One passenger did not obtain the ticket on the ground that he was claiming himself to be an ex-MLA, who also misbehaved with the Traffic Inspector during the course of checking. The Labour Court held that there was no malafide intention of the workman behind it. Charges of any embezzlement against the workman could not be proved before the Labour Court. The Labour Court accordingly held that the punishment of termination awarded to the workman was not commensurate with the gravity of charges framed against him and, therefore, punishment was reduced to stoppage of two increments without any cumulative effect and ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. I have perused the materials available on record and I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned award dated 2.1.1997 passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. 5. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper not to award any back wages to the workman/respondent no.2. The impugned award dated 2.1.1997 is modified to this extent accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 4.8.2008 Prabodh