1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8113/2002. : : RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Shri Jal Singh & Anr. : : Date of Order 19.8.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. A. K. Bansal for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Kant for Mr. B. L. Gupta for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- RSRTC against the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 9.2.2001 whereby application of respondent filed under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed and the order dated 23.7.1987 terminating service of respondent- workman was quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating that charge against the respondent was serious one. While he was conductor of bus and on checking, it was found that there were two 2 passengers without ticket and fare from whom had already been collected by respondent-workman. It is contended that the Industrial Tribunal has taken a very hyper technical view of the matter by holding that way bill did not contain the signature of driver and that since the bus was checked at Tiraha, which was a bus stop, where the passengers were boarding and getting down from the bus. In fact, passengers without ticket had not boarded the bus from Tiraha, but had boarded the bus from Bahala whereas the cheeking took place at Tiraha, which is at a distant place. Learned counsel submitted that findings recorded by Tribunal are wholly perverse and impugned order, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the writ petition and argued that evidence that was adduced before the Industrial Tribunal was clearly to the effect that bus was checked at Tiraha, which was a prescribed bus stop where booking office also exists. The passengers were boarding the bus and were also alighting therefrom. Tickets were issued at such place by booking window and when the bus was checked, if any passenger was found to have boarded without ticket in the bus, the 3 respondent-workman could not be held responsible for that. There was no witness to prove the version of petitioner. It is also submitted that respondent-workman has since been reinstated in service. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that learned Tribunal indeed recorded a finding and found that bus was checked at the place, which was close to booking office and this fact was admitted even by Shri C. L. Saini, Transport Inspector, who was Incharge of the Inspecting team. The learned Tribunal also held that even if there were two passengers without ticket, it cannot be accepted that respondent charged fare from them and this fact itself was not proved by any evidence. No particulars of such two passengers were given and no evidence that fare has been charged from them, was also given. The impugned order was passed as far as back on 9.2.2001 and the respondent-workman has since been reinstated in service. In view of above, it would not be appropriate to make any interference in the impugned order, which even otherwise does not suffer from any legal infirmity. At the 4 same time, however the direction of learned Tribunal directing payment of 30% back wages to respondent- workman deserves to be set aside because the respondent himself had belatedly filed the application under Section 33 A of the Act. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The direction issued by Tribunal for payment of 30% back wages to the respondent is set aside and the remaining order is maintained as aforesaid. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.61.