Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1019 of 2001 (Old No.21050 of 1999) U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through the Regional Manager, Dehradun. ……………. Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. …………….. Respondents ………………… Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Sangeeta Miyan Advocate,for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 15.05.1998 passed by Labour Court, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 2. The respondent No.3/ workman was working on the post of Fitter in the Regional workshop of Dehradun Region of the Corporation. He was placed under suspension on 27.2.1996 on a charge of theft. Inquiry was conducted against the workman. The charge was found proved against him and he was removed from service on 28.05.1996. The workman raised a dispute and the State Government, vide notification dated 12.11.1997 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication which was registered as Adjudication Case No.167 of 1997. 2 3. Before the Labour court the workman denied the allegations levelled against him and alleged that the inquiry was not conducted according to the principle of natural justice. He was not afforded opportunity to defend his case and to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer Corporation. On the contrary, the employer alleged that opportunity had been given to the workman to defend his case and to cross-examine the witnesses adduced by the petitioner but he deliberately refused to cross-examine the witnesses. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court came to a finding that the departmental inquiry was fair and proper but at the same time set aside the order of removal directing reinstatement with continuity of service, 80% of the back wages alongwith the balance pay for suspension period. A minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect has also been awarded. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. It has come in the finding of Labour Court that shaft of gearbox, which he was carrying with him from the workshop, was found with him within the workshop premises and he was not taken it out of the gate of workshop. Hence the Labour Court has rightly held that the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and harsh and committed no mistake in set asiding the removal of workman /respondent No.3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed partly. The workman will be entitled to get 50% (fifty per cent) of the back wages instead of 80% (eight per 3 cent). The remaining part of the impugned award is affirmed. 6. The writ petition is allowed partly accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh