Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who was working as a conductor on daily wage basis, has been terminated, with his name struck off from the waiting list, consequent upon a finding of guilt returned against him in disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 17.12.1991. This order was affirmed in appeal on 6.2.1992. An industrial dispute at the instance of petitioner was, consequently, referred for adjudication to Labour Court -Ist U.P., Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 220 of 1993. The reference has been answered against the workman petitioner, vide award dated 13.1.1995, which is under challenge in this petition. Prayer has been made to quash the award, as well as for reinstating the petitioner alongwith consequential benefits. A further direction is sought to treat petitioner as a regular employee, instead of daily wager and to regularize the services of petitioner.
(2.) Challenge to the award has been laid by contending that petitioner was selected as a conductor by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the procedure contemplated for regular selection after holding a written test and interview. Ultimately, an order of appointment came to be issued by Regional Manager, Jhansi, on 21.8.1989, offering him appointment as conductor on daily wage basis, fixing his wage at Rs. 19.15 paisa per day, though he ought to have been appointed substantively. Nevertheless, fact remains that petitioner's engagement was on daily wage basis, as conductor. Petitioner asserts that he also completed training. After about an year's working of petitioner as conductor, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 26.11.1990, on the charge that while Corporation Bus No. UGG 389 was being operated on Kanpur -Rath Road, it was inspected in the presence of Assistant Regional Manager on 9.11.1990 at 3.00 p.m., wherein 41 passengers were found travelling in the Bus. Upon physical inspection, it transpired that 30 passengers boarded the Bus from Muskara and petitioner had charged Rs. 5/ - from each person, but tickets were not issued to any of the passengers initially, and it was only when the passengers demanded ticket that they were offered ticket of Rs. 2/ -, indicating origin of journey from Dhanauri, instead of Muskara, on account of which the inspection squad issued a composite ticket No. 2753 to 30 passengers from Muskara to Dhanauri, and statement of certain passengers were also recorded, upon which signature of petitioner was allegedly obtained. The charge levelled, to be precise, was that having received amount for a longer distance, petitioner issued tickets for a shorter journey, thereby misappropriating difference of ticket amount. Accordingly, following five charges were levelled: - (i). On 9.11.1990, petitioner having realized amount for the entire journey from 30 passengers issued tickets for a shorter journey. (ii). Petitioner for his own interest tried to misappropriate funds belonging to the Corporation. (iii). Committing fraud with the Corporation. (iv). Violating departmental instructions issued. (v). Working contrary to the employee conduct rules.
(3.) Petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 7.1.1991 denying the allegations levelled against him. Sri Chhatrapal Singh, a Panel Judge, was appointed as enquiry officer. An order was also passed on 6.8.1991 not to take petitioner on duty. Enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 20.8.1991 holding the petitioner guilty of attempting to misappropriate amount of Rs. 150/ - realized from passengers, and thereafter offering them tickets for shorter journey, so as to pocket a sum of Rs. 90/ -. A show cause notice followed, to which petitioner submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to hold that allegation of misconduct against petitioner was proved, and consequently, terminated his engagement as a daily wage conductor, and his name was directed to be struck off from the waiting list. Petitioner preferred an appeal, which also has been rejected on 6th February, 1992. It is thereafter that reference has been made on 31.7.1993 for adjudication by Labour Court, on the question as to whether termination of petitioner's services, vide order 17.11.1991, is legal or valid or not? And to what relief is the workman entitled?;