COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 198/2002 U.P.S.R.T.C. through its Regional Manager, Dehradun. …….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun And Other. …….Respondents Sri R.S. Bisht, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 2. 22nd August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity and legality of the award dated 11.9.2001 passed by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2, Vinod Kumar Gupta was working as a Bus Conductor in the petitioner’s corporation. He was served with a chargesheet dated 13.6.1995 with the allegation that on 3.6.1995 during the inspection of the bus, 50 out of 58 passengers were found without ticket although the workman had realized the fare from them. Workman denied the allegation and submitted that while he was counting the passengers the checking squad conducted the inspection. Domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman and the Enquiry Officer found the charge levelled against the workman to be proved. Thereafter workman was served with a show cause notice along with 2 copy of the enquiry report which was replied by the workman. Ultimately services of the workman/respondent no. 2 were terminated vide order dated 30.3.2000. Workman raised an industrial dispute and appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its employee Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Shiv Prakash Gupta, Conductor vide order dated 30.3.2000 is improper/illegal? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 3. After considering the materials available on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman and against the employer and held that there was no mala fide intention of the workman behind the incident and as such the punishment of termination awarded to the workman was grossly disproportionate and excessively high. Accordingly, by the impugned award, punishment of termination was reduced to stoppage of one increment without any cumulative effect and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with the aforesaid reduced punishment along with full back wages. 4. It transpires from the perusal of the materials available on record that there were two traffic inspectors in the checking squad and both of them gave contradictory statements before the Enquiry Officer. Assistant Regional Manager was also present during the course of inspection who deposed before the Enquiry 3 Officer that passengers told him that they had boarded the bus immediately before the inspection and that there was no fault of Conductor/workman. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, Labour Court rightly held that the punishment of termination awarded to the workman was not commensurate with the nature and gravity of offence committed by him. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the same does not require any interference by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it proper to award any back wages to the workman/respondent no. 2. However, workman shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of the award i.e. 11.9.2001. The impugned award dated 11.9.2001 is modified to the extent indicated above. 6. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 22.8.2008 Prabodh