Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an award dated 12.11.1998 passed by labour court, U.P., Varanasi in adjudication case No. 63 of 1997. The State Government having formed the opinion that an industrial dispute exists, referred the following matter for adjudication to the labour court aforesaid: "KYA SEVAJOJAKO DWARA APANE SHRAMIK SRI SHAMBHU CHAUBEY SON OF SRI RAM SAGAR CHAUBEY, PAD PARICHALAK KI SEWAYE DINANK 11.9.1989 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ ATHWA VEDHANIK HAl? YADI NAHI TO SHRAMIK KYA HITLABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAl ?" 3. Facts of the case are that respondent no. 3- workman was a conductor in petitioner - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 12.12.1985 the workman was deputed as conductor on Bus No. 4500 plying under contract with the corporation on Allahabad-Jaunpur route. The checking authority on checking the bus found that five passengers out of a total of 50 passengers from Phoolpur to Badshahpur, were traveling without ticket even though the respondent no.3 had already realised fare from them. On the basis of report submitted by the checking authority, a charge sheet dated 21.6.1989 was served on respondent no. 3, who also submitted his reply. After holding domestic enquiry, the appointing authority being satisfied that charges of serious misconduct contained in the charge sheet stood fully proved against him, removed the respondent no. 3 from service vide order dated 11.9.1989. Aggrieved the workman filed Writ Petition No. 43140 of 1992 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.3.1995 and Special Appeal No. 252 of 1995 preferred against the judgment in the writ petition, was disposed of vide judgment dated 2.7.1996 granting liberty to the workman to approach the labour court. Subsequently, the workman concerned raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his service which was referred to the labour court, Varanasi as stated above.
(3.) THE parties filed their respective written and rejoinder statements as well as documents before the labour court and also adduced oral evidence. On the basis of pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether departmental enquiry held by the employers was fair and proper or not? Vide order dated 12.10.1998, the labour court held that enquiry conducted by the employer was fair and proper. Thereafter the labour court considered the dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of workman to misappropriate any revenue of the corporation. After discussing the evidence on record and on hearing the parties, the labour court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of removal from service of respondent no. 3 was too excessive as such it set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and full back wages with minor punishment of stoppage of one year wage increment with future effect.;