R.B.Mehrotra - (1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) on 21-7-1973 and was confirmed on the said post. On 16-9-1982, the petitioner was on duty in bus no. U.P.O. 5684 in route Shahjahanpur to Bunda. On the said date the bus was checked by Sri Bal Govind Awasthi, Senior Station Incharge, Sri Jagdish Chandra Mishra, and Sri Jai Ram Singh, Asstt. Traffic Inspectors at 16.40 hours. According to the Department's case the bus was got stopped at Sabli Kesar which is situated between Bangawan and Daulatpur. THE way bill was found in the hands of the conductor and after looking to the inspection authorities, the petitioner hurriedly started issuing all the tickets. At the time of inspection, 54 passengers were found travelling in the bus out of which there were no tickets with 36 passengers. THE conductor had only 36 tickets from Daulatpur to Bunda. THE entries in the way bill were incomplete which shows the mala fides of the petitioner. THE passengers who were not carrying any ticket told that they have boarded the bus from Powayan and they have paid the fare to to the conductor from Powayan to Bunda. THE conductor did not permit the passengers to give their statements. THE passengers were given a collective ticket no. 6046 for 36 passengers for an amount of Rs. 68.40 P. THE substance of the inspection was noted on the way-bill and for verification purposes was got signed by the conductor. THE original way bill was taken in custody by the inspecting staff which shows incomplete entries and which also shows that the total amount collected was also not entered in the way-bill.
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid charge, a chargesheet was given to the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was punished and removed from service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging his removal under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bareilly in the following terms : "Whether the services of the workman Sabir Husain, son of Sri Jumman Bux have been validly terminated by the employer, vide their order, dated 9-12-1982 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and with what direction ? The Labour Court, vide its award, dated 30-10-1987 have answered the reference in favour of the employer holding that the order of removal passed against the petitioner was in accordance with law. Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid award and made the following submissions :- (i) That the only question which the Labour Court was required to decide according to the award itself was as to whether the bus was booked between Dalelpur and Bunda or between Powayan and Dalelpur and the said question has not been decide by the Labour Court and as such the award of the Labour Court did not bring home the guilt of the petitioner and is liable to be set aside. (ii) That the labour court has erred in law in upholding the extreme punishment of termination of service of the petitioner on the basis of past records of the petitioner whereas on the file of the labour court there was no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner's past records was bad. (iii) That three persons checked the bus whereas only one person has been examined, namely, Sri Bal Govind Awasthi, S.S.I, whereas Sri Jagdish Chandra Singh and Sri Jai Ram Singh who were Assistant Traffic Inspectors were not examined. According to Sri Jain it was the primary duty of the Asstt. Traffic Inspectors to have checked the bus and actually they were real persons who should have been examined for bringing home the charge against the petitioner. The Department having failed to examine the aforesaid two witnesses, the charge against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved. (iv) That no passenger was examined in support of the Department's case. Even the names of the passengers were not noted. No effort was made to prove the Department's case through any independent evidence. The punishment given to the petitioner only on the basis of the statement of Sri Bal Govind Awasthi without being supported by any independent evidence is wholly unjustified in law. (v) That the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report which has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner in his defence and on the said basis the petitioner's removal is liable to be set aside.
(3.) IN reply to the aforesaid submissions, Sri S. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the U. P. State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has submitted that the petitioner has categorically admitted in his statement before the labour court that in 36 tickets he has filled the place of destination i.e. from which place to which place and has filled the amount of fare but had not filled the date in the tickets. The entries in the tickets are incomplete because he hurriedly issued the tickets on looking into the checking party as the INspectors can check the bus at any time. Sri Sharma has contended that from the statement of the petitioner himself he has admitted that the tickets were not issued to the passengers and he issued tickets looking to the checking staff. Sri Sharma has contended that on the basis of the aforesaid statement, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the labour court holding that under the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Labour Tribunal it is the duty of the conductor to issue correct tickets and make their entries in the way bill and only thereafter permit the bus to leave the station. Sri Sabir Husain bad not only failed to perform his duties but illegally prepared the incomplete tickets and waybill with the object of keeping the passengers' fare with himself. He had been caught red handed by the checking staff and the punishment which has been given to the petitioner is perfectly justified. Sri Sharma has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9102 of 1980 Shri Kishan Sharma v. The Asstt. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. and others Delhi, decided on 26-2-1988 wherein this court held : "From instructions issued by Transport Department it is clear that duties, functions and responsibilities of roadways conductor are mentioned in paragraph 21. It is clearly provided that passengers shall be picked up on "pay and board" system. It is true that in exceptional circumstances a conductor is required to issue tickets even after start of journey. But none of the circumstances is made out in case of the petitioner. If a passenger entered into bus and he did not have a ticket then responsibility was of conductor and, therefore, inference drawn by opposite party cannot be said to be erroneous. Since the petitioner failed to perform duties as provided in the rules, it was misconduct and his services could be dispensed with. IN the end learned counsel urged that the punishment of removal is not commensurate with the guilt found. IN our opinion, argument is not available in this case Charges against petitioner were not only of carrying passengers without tickets but even obstructing checking squad and preventing them from taking statements of passengers. All this has been found to be correct. IN the circumstances, this court shall not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment." Sri Sharma also contended that even if the labour court has casually made observation in the award that the real issue to be decided is as to which place the bus was checked, the said observation is wholly irrelevant and on the basis of only that casual observation the award should not be set aside.;