- (1.) THE order of 20-9-2006 on the order sheet is quoted below: "list revised. Sri S. C. Shukla learned Counsel appearing for workman-respondent No. 3 states that he has got no instruction on behalf of respondent no. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit filed on 17-5-2006. Judgment reserved. "
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 19-5-1987 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court (II), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 143 of 1985. Respondent No. 3 Bhagwan Singh Parmar was conductor working with petitioner Corporation He was found carrying several passengers with insufficient tickets at the time of Surprise checking on 18-10-1978. It was found that some passengers were charged for a longer distance, which they were actually to cover however they were issued tickets of shorter distance. In departmental proceedings full opportunity was given to the respondent No. 3 and it was found that the charge against him was proved. However, Labour Court held that the said enquiry was not proper. Accordingly evidence was adduced before the Labour Court. The Labour court held the charges not to be proved mainly on the ground that at the time of surprising checking conduct of the conductor was co-operative, and neither the passengers to whom tickets of shorter distance had been issued nor other passengers were examined. The fact that other passengers did not lodge any complaint against the conductor also greatly, influenced the Labour Court. Examining the passengers from whom higher amount was charged but tickets of lesser amount were issued was not at all not necessary. In any case conductor was free to examine any passenger but he did not do so. The. conduct of the conductor at the time of checking and absence of any complaint by other passengers against him were utterly irrelevant facts for deciding as to whether charge levelled against the conductor was proved or not. The Supreme court in Commissioner of Police v. Narehdm Singh, 2006 (109) FLR 852 (SC) has held that standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not same as required in criminal cases. Labour Court was also unnecessarily influenced by the fact that earlier no complaint was received against the said conductor.
(3.) THROUGH interim order dated 12-1-1988 passed in this writ petition operation of the impugned award was stayed on the condition that the petitioner instated respondent No. 3 and accordingly respondent No. 3 was reinstated. In this writ petition by order dated 4-4-2006 U. P. S. R. T. C petitioner was directed to inquire as to whether any subsequent proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 2 or not.;