- (1.) By this common order, we dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1051 of 1052 of 2009, as they originate from the grievance of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.7.2009. Two of the employees of the appellant/Corporation namely Dalbir Singh Driver and Kuldip Singh Conductor faced disciplinary proceedings of the charge of plying a bus on a special trip from Khalra to Bhikhiwind and by issuing used tickets, committed a fraud with the Corporation of an amount of Rs.35/-.
(2.) The charge was enquired into and established before the Enquiry Officer leading to the termination of the services of both the employees which further led to a reference being claimed by them under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which was rejected by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Patiala resulting in two Civil Writ Petitions No. 16319 of 1992 and 1331 of 1993 having been filed, the answer to which was given by the learned Single Judge accepting the plea of the writ petitioners in totality by setting aside the termination and ordering the reinstatement in the case of writ petitioner Dalbir Singh, Driver (in C.W.P. No. 16319 of 1992) and partially in the case of Kuldip Singh, Conductor (in C.W.P. No. 1331 of 1993) in whose case instead of reinstatement, an amount of Rs.3 lacs as compensation was granted.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment, in these two L.P.A. Nos.1051 and 1052 of 2009, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time of inspection, a report was prepared to which the respondents herein (writ petitioners) had appended their signatures and this itself was sufficient to establish the veracity of the charge against them. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect of the matter to state that there is no escape from an inference about the charge having been proved when there is no denial to the signatures being appended to this report by the respondents.;