Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) The writ petition involves with the interpretation of sub-section (2A) of Section 6 (the Section 6 (2A)) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the State Act) and the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding or before the labour court. FACTS
(2.) Sri Suresh Kumar Karnwal (the contesting respondent) was a conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (the corporation). A checking squad checked his bus on Harldwar-Uttarkashi route on 3.1.1986 and found 27 out of 39 passengers to be without ticket. The contesting respondent, after an inquiry, was removed by an order dated 2.2.1980 and his balance pay for suspension period was forfeited. FINDINGS AND PUNISHMENT
(3.) The contesting respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court under the State Act. The labour court has recorded following findings : (i) The departmental enquiry was fair and proper. (ii) 27 out of 39 passengers were without tickets. (iii) The contesting respondent is guilty of starting the bus without realising the fare. (iv) The charge of realising the fare from the passengers and misappropriating the amount is not proved. On these findings, the Labour Court held : the removal of the contesting respondent is not proportionate to the misconduct : the punishment is severe : and the contesting respondent is entitled to be reinstated. The Labour Court imposed punishment ; for realisation of Rs. 337.50, the fare of 27 passengers : and stoppage of one increment (not effective in future). Hence, the present writ petition by the Corporation. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION;