RakeshTiwari,J. - (1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 3.4.1992, passed by the labour court, Annexure-3 and the order of termination dated 20.4.1982, passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Conductor on 10.6.1990, in U. P. State Transport Corporation. He was issued charge-sheets dated 21.1.1981 and 24.10.1981 for carrying passengers without ticket on four occasions in order to embezzle the Corporation revenue. His services were terminated by order dated 20.4.1982, passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, U. P. State Transport Corporation, Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 2 after holding enquiry in the charges. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against order of his termination, which was referred to by the State Government to the Labour Court (1) U. P. Meerut, where it was registered as I.D. Case No. 89 of 1983. The labour court by award dated 3.4.1992, has held that all the charges of misconduct against the petitioner stood proved and has given finding of fact that the punishment awarded to him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges in the circumstances of the case. It has further been held that he is not entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages or other benefits.
(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the award on the ground that the findings given by the labour court are against the evidence on record and are unwarranted in the eyes of law as no charge is made out against him. THE further ground of challenge is that the punishment awarded against him is disproportionate and is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is alleged that when the labour court came to the conclusion that the existing enquiry against the petitioner is not in accordance with law, the termination of his service should have been treated from the date of the impugned award i.e., 3.4.1992 and not from the date of termination of service by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.4.1982. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases : (1) B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 65. (2) Shri Chand v. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 2. (3) Ram Pratap v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (3) AWC 2049 : (1999) 3 UPLBEC 102. (4) Unnati Chaturvedi (Dr.) (Smt.) v. Director of Education, Allahabad and others, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 103. (5) P. C. Srivastava v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others, 2000 (1) ESC 82 (All) (6) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1475 (SC).;