LPA No.324 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.324 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 31.03.2010 Joginder Kumar ....Appellant. Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, order impugned is dated 14.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby allowing the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant – workman was working as Conductor with the respondent – Corporation and joined his services on 9.8.1971. The workman was found defrauding the corporation by re-issuing used tickets. Charge sheet dated 21.1.1988 was issued to the workman. Enquiry was held. The workman preferred his reply to the show LPA No.324 of 2010 2 cause notice and was heard personally. Charges were found to be proved against the workman. Services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 20.3.1990. He preferred departmental appeal. The appellate authority having heard the workman personally, rejected the appeal vide order dated 16.10.1992. Reference was made to the Labour Court vide order dated 3.1.1994. The Labour Court framed the following issues: -- “(1) Whether there has been a fair and proper enquiry ? (2) Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? (3) Relief. “ 3. The Labour Court has decided issue No.1 against the workman. The Labour Court while deciding issue No.2 has held that severity of the punishment was not proportionate to the lapse committed by the workman in view of the 19 years of service to the credit of the workman. The Labour Court substituted the punishment to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect with effect from the date of termination i.e. 20.3.1990. The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service without back wages vide award dated 17.4.1996. The management – Corporation preferred writ petition. In the writ petition, no stay was granted against the award of the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge found that charges were proved against the workman. The workman was guilty of defrauding his employer and hence, it would not be proper to reinstate the workman as directed by the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge also opined that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable that the workman be treated as fresh appointee from the date he joined in pursuance of the order dated 27.5.1998 passed by LPA No.324 of 2010 3 the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused record. 5. We, in LPA No.1211 of 2009, while placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Uttranchal Pradesh Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 129, have upheld termination of the services of the conductor. Issuing used tickets to the passengers by charging money is not only misconduct against the employer but also fraud with the passengers. 6. Since learned Single Judge issued directions to treat the workman as fresh appointee and the fact that the corporation has not challenged the order of learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. Appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 31.03.2010 sk.