Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) OM Prakash Mishra, respondent No. 3 herein, who was posted as conductor on 7.6.1969 on Bus No. UMV 9829, plying on Mirzapur Anpara route, was checked by Checking Authorities namely Sri K.N. Chaturvedi and Baldeo Prasad, Assistant Traffic Inspectors along with other persons. Thirty three passengers were found travelling without tickets. The respondent No. 3 had torn twenty tickets which were not entered in the way bill. It was further found that he permitted unbooked luggage in the Bus. It was the first misconduct. Again, on 20th of July, 1989, when the respondent No. 3 was posted as conductor on Bus No. URG 435 which was checked by Sri Heera Lal Upadhyaya, Senior Station Incharge along with the other members of the team, the respondent No. 3 was found carrying passengers without issuing tickets. It was the second misconduct.
(2.) ON the basis of the facts as found on the aforestated two occasions, a departmental inquiry was conducted against respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was held guilty of misconduct and consequently, his services were terminated on 13.8.1990. Being aggrieved by the termination order, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 3. It was registered as Adjudication Case No. 154 of 1992. The Industrial Tribunal (I), U.P., Allahabad by the impugned award dated 30.5.1994 found that the said departmental inquiry was conducted in a fair manner. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment awarded to the workman is harsh and deserves to be interfered with, and it was ordered by the Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in service and be given half back wages and other benefits admissible to him treating him in continuous service. The legality and validity of the said award has been questioned by the petitioner employer in the present petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal itself that the respondent No. 3 has misconducted by not obeying the 'Pay and Board Rules' twice hardly within a period of two months, exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the termination order and ordering the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. H.H. Pujar : (2008) 12 SCC 698 and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma : (2002) 10 SCC 330.;