V.C.Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents are present.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.2.1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) mainly on the ground that the impugned award of the Labour Court, is perverse illegal and erroneous, because the Labour Court grossly erred not considering the fact that the erring workman conductor had not made entries in the way-bill and left it blank and admittedly there was one person, who was found travelling without ticket; whose ticked was made by checking authority along with the penalty, and that the Labour Court had wrongly not relied upon the statement of Sri V.V. Singh, the Traffic Superintendent on the ground that other authorities who had checked and allegedly issued the ticket and signed the document, had not been produced, as witness in support this case.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512, wherein it has been held that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated Rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. It is not necessary to produce the other passenger witness.;