D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged and the Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award of the labour Court dated 28th October, 1989 by which the order of removal of the respondent workman has been held to be improper and he has been directed to be reinstated with backwages. The respondent workman was employed as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation in 1979 on a short term vacancy. On 10th January, 1981, while conducting a bus No. 9349 plying on Mirzapur -Kota route, it was signaled by the inspecting team to stop it at about 10.40 p.m., however, the bus did not stop and continued. Nevertheless, another inspecting staff checked the bus at about 12 mid night at Renusagar turning and 68 passengers on board were found to be travelling without ticket, while the respondent workman was not found in the bus. Two charges were framed against him, first relating to not stopping the bus when signaled by the first checking party and second, for allowing ticket less travelling. After enquiry the first charge was partly found to be proved while the Enquiry Officer held that the workman was entitled to benefit of doubt on the second charge. The punishing authority after examining the entire record found that second charge stood proved against the workman and thus after due opportunity, his services were terminated. This resulted in conciliation proceedings and upon a failure report, it was referred to the labour Court which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 67 of 1987 which found that the view taken by the punishing authority was not reasonable and without cogent reasons and as such it held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer ought to have been accepted and thus the impugned award granting reinstatement with backwages.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the finding of the labour Court that the reasons given by the punishing authority for disagreeing with the reasons given by the Inquiry Officer is itself perverse.;