V.N. Khare, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an award dated 12th August, 1986 given by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court U.P. Bareilly in Adjudication Case No. 11/84.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.R.T.C.) in March, 1973. It is alleged that on 22nd November, 1980 the petitioner along with his friend in drunken state entered in the office of bus station, Rampur and twisted the arm of one Shiv Daual and further abused another employee of the U.P.S.R.T.C. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was served with a charge-sheet dated 29th November, 1980. Subsequently by an order dated 13th July, 1981 the Assistant Regional Manager, Moradabad dismissed the petitioner from service. He further directed that the suspension allowance which has not been paid to the petitioner shall be forfeited. Since a dispute arose between the petitioner and the U.P.S.R.T.C. the State Government by an order dated 4th January, 1984 referred the matter of dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bareilly. The Labour Court, Bareilly by the impugned award held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was valid and the petitioner ; is not entitled to any relief. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come up to this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Mohd. Jafar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised only one submission to the effect that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of offence and as such the extreme penalty of dismissal from service be set-aside. This plea, as ; raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was also raised before the Labour Court and the same was rejected. The questions which arise for consideration are as to whether it is open to this Court to enter into the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner and further as to whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too severe, seeing the nature of offence alleged against the petitioner.;