A.P.SAHI, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of an award of the Labour Court against the petitioner rejecting his claim against the reference of termination of his services on the charge that he had allowed ticket -less passengers to travel on the bus on which he was on duty on the date of the incident i.e. 17.9.1987.
(2.) SRI Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following four submissions: - A. Petitioner could not be charge sheeted or punished for alleged misconduct committed on 17.9.1987 as it was for the earlier period of employment from 4.6.1987 to 18.9.1987 and his re -employment w.e.f. 19.7.1987 condoned the earlier misconduct particularly when from 19.7.1987 to 22.9.1990 there was no misconduct alleged against him. B. In view of the provisions of section 6 (2) (A) of the U.P. I.D. Act, Labour Court has been given appellate power over the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as such Labour Court was duty bound to frame the issue of enquiry and would have appraised the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer but the Labour Court has failed to even frame the issue of enquiry and has not appraised the evidence of the enquiry. (Workmen of Firestone 1973 SCC (L&S) 331). C. In any view of the matter the Labour Court would have considered the question of violation of principles of natural justice which has not been considered. (Cooper Engineering Works Vs. P.P. Mundhe AIR 1975 SC. 1900) D. Findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and defence evidence has been wrongly rejected and there was no reliable evidence to find the misconduct proved. Sri Sinha submits that where the passengers were themselves voluntarily not delivering the payment to the extent of the fare demanded, then such an incident would not fall within the definition of misconduct. He further submits that the decision which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Corporation do not apply in cases arising out of the Industrial Dispute Act.
(3.) THE contention is that, if a misconduct is not defined, then in view of the decision in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. and A.L. Kalra Vs. Project Presiding Officer, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 505 the petitioner could not & Equipment Corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1361, have been punished. To distinguish the proceedings in a service matter, and the case arising out of an award of Industrial Tribunal, learned Counsel relies on the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & and the another Vs. Bijli Majdoor Sangh and others, 2007 (5) JT SC 611 Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation reported 2009 (12) SCALE Pg. 25.;