1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5207/2009 Hari Prasad vs RSRTC & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 6.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. DK Parihar, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was working as driver with the respondent no.1. He was driving bus no.3173 on 15.12.1991 and on checking it was found that 11 passengers were travelling in the bus without ticket. The log sheet was prepared and petitioner's signatures were obtained. Then in departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for taking 11 passengers without ticket in the bus of the respondent no.1 and he was punished in the departmental inquiry and his services were terminated. The matter was taken to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947), wherein the decision of the removal o the petitioner from services was upheld vide order dated 13th April, 2008. Llearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no passenger was travelling in the bus on the relevant time and 2 independent evidence was not collected. It is submitted that only departmental officers produced in the departmental inquiry. It is also submitted that petitioner has been removed not by the appointing authority. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given in the impugned order and the documents placed on record by the petitioner. The labour court relied upon the evidence, which have not been disputed by the petitioner anywhere and it is also not disputed that he signed the log report (Ex.P/2) where the signatures of the petitioner are there and there is mention of fact that 11 passengers were travelling and admittedly, no ticket was issued. The petitioner did not choose to produce any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the department. The departmental evidence cannot be discarded merely because of the reason that the departmental persons gave evidence when evidence was found trustworthy by the labour court. It will be worthwhile to mention here that in order dated 15th Nov., 1993 (Annex.3) it is clearly mentioned that when the petitioner was asked to give his submission then he admitted the inquiry and stated that he does not want to produce any evidence. In the totality of the facts of the case, in writ jurisdiction, there is no reason to interfere in such an order where the petitioner was found guilty carrying 11 passengers without 3 ticket in the bus of the respondents. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, for that learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has right to submit in the reference. Be it as it may be, in under challenge order dated 13.2.2008 the punishment has been upheld and approved by labour court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-