- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 29. 2. 2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Labour Court (2), Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 319 of 1994. It appears from the impugned award dated 29. 2. 2000 that the Labour Court has found the misconduct of respondent No. 1 workman committed by him on 6. 3. 86 and 4. 3. 84 for carrying passengers without tickets to be fully proved but the misconduct for carrying passengers without tickets on 10. 7. 84,14. 7. 85,6. 4. 84 and 23. 2. 87 has not been proved. The Labour Court has noted that on 6. 3. 86 the workman caught red handed on checking for carrying 10 passengers without ticket in the bus and on 4. 3. 84 he was again carrying one passenger without tickets in the bus. At the time of admission, the Court vide order dated 17. 7. 2000 stayed the operation of the impugned award until further orders provided the petitioner pays month by month to respondent No. 1 an amount equivalent to the wages last drawn by him.
(3.) IT appears that the respondent workman has continued to work in the establishment of the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 17. 7. 2000 and has now retired from service. Admittedly the Labour Court has found the charge of carrying passengers without tickets proved against the workman and in view of the settled position of law by the Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, U. P. SRTC, Etawah and otters v. Hoti Lal and another, 2003 SCC (L&s) 363, carrying passengers without tickets is grave offence for which dismissal from service is appropriate punishment. The scope of judicial review is based on the test of proportionality which is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. Therefore, the Labour Court has committed an error in law in awarding 75% back wages to the workman concerned on the ground that other charge of carrying passengers without tickets on different dates was not proved. The charged employee was holding the post of trust as he was conductor in the bus and was charging fare from the passengers for journey from the bus. For such post honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning. Since the Labour Court has found the charge of carrying passengers without tickets by the workman on two occasions fully proved, it ought to have been dealt with iron hands and not lenient view should be taken. In the case of Regional Manager, U. P. SRTC. Etawah (supra) the Apex Court upheld the termination of the service of a bus conductor for carrying ticketless passengers in the bus of the Corporation. In that case, the Apex Court was also of the view that such misconduct had caused to the State only a loss of Rs. 16, inconsequential. Therefore, it follows that the amount of loss caused to the Corporation by carrying ticketless passengers is not very relevant. What is relevant is integrity and honey of the person holding the post while discharging the duties.;