IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS NO. 487 OF 2002 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ..Petitioner. Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun and another. …Respondents. Mr. V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 27th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 204/2000 contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. 2. A dispute was referred to the Labour Court vide notification No. 6570-75(Shra.Aa.)/36-Shram(1) C.B. 11/97 Saharanpur dated 31.12.98, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 204/2000. The reference was to the following effect: “Whether the order of adverse entry in the service book of workman Prem Chandra Conductor and stoppage of his six years’ increment passed by the Employer is justified and /or illegal, if not, to what relief / compensation, the concerned workman is entitled to get?” 2. Before the Labour Court both the parties adduced their respective evidence. 3. The dispute was raised by the Roadways Workman Joint Board, Haridwar on behalf of the workman. The workman Prem chandra was working as Conductor in the petitioner department. He was given charge sheet on 19.11.1991, whereby a charge was leveled against him that on 16.6.1991, during inspection of the Bus, which was coming from Delhi to Rishikesh, 67 passengers were found without-ticket and the workman snatched the way- bill from the hands of the Inspector, due to which the upper part of the book came into the hands of Inspector and the rest part came into the hands of the concerned workman. Further a charge was leveled that he instigated the passengers and misbehaved with the Inspector. The workman Prem Chandra denied the charges. Against him, a departmental inquiry was conducted by one H.S. Saxena, who was the retired officer of Indian Forest Service and submitted his inquiry report, wherein the charges leveled against the workman were not proved. Being disagreed with the report of Mr. H.S. Saxena, the Area Manager gave a show cause notice to the workman on 3.12.1993. In response to that show cause notice, workman filed a reply. Thereafter, vide order dated 5.4.1994, the Area Manager gave an adverse entry, stopped the remaining amount of salary accrued during the period of suspension and reinstated the workman by stopping increment for further ten years. Against the said order, the workman filed a representation before the Divisional Chief Manager, whereupon he vide order dated 23.9.1994 modified the punishment to the extent that increment shall not be given upto six years instead of ten years. Aggrieved by the said order, on behalf of the workman an industrial dispute was raised. 4. The Labour Court vide order dated 20.7.2001 that the order of the Employer of stopping increment for a period of six years of the employee concerned is not justified and legal and directed to remove the adverse entry from the service book of the workman. It was further directed that the workman shall be given arrear, remaining salary of the suspension period and the increments accordingly. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court while passing the said award has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties. In the statement of Mr. R.R. Kaushik, who was posted on checking duty at Dorala, it has come that he has applied stamp on fifty nine passengers and Traffic Inspector Sri Banwari Lal has stated that on counting, sixty seven passengers had been found. It was admitted by them that at the time of counting of passengers, they were not having way-bill with them, but it was with Mr. Kuashik. A finding was further recorded that at the time of departmental inquiry, the Check Post Register was not produced, where number of passengers were mentioned as fifty nine. On the basis of that Register, the Area Manager has passed the order. The Court below has further recorded a finding that the Area Manager should have taken into consideration only those evidence, which were produced at the time of departmental inquiry and as the Check Post Register was not produced at the time of departmental inquiry, therefore, it could not have been taken into consideration by the Area Manager. It was recorded that it is against the natural justice to make the check post register a base for passing the said order. It has been come that the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer was perfect that there were fifty nine passengers in the Bus at the time of inspection, which were mentioned in the way- bill and there were no passenger without-ticket. So far as the snatching of the way-bill is concerned, Mr. Kaushik stated that in misapprehension, considering the way-bill of his own, the Conductor of another Bus snatched the way-bill from the hands of the Traffic Inspector and it got torn, therefore, the workman cannot be said to be guilty of snatching and tearing the way-bill. Further, it has been recorded by the Labour Court that it has no where come that who deposited the rest part of the way-bill in the Depot. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the court below, I find the award passed by the Court below perfectly justified and is affirmed. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.8.2008 Rathour