Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.—The appellant by this appeal is challenging an order of the ­Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur made in DBC ­Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1184/97 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the ­respondent workman herein setting aside the order of remand made by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court, and confirming the award made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :—

The respondent herein who was working as a conductor in the appellant - Corporation was charged on two counts of non-issuance of tickets to passengers travelling in the bus of which he was the conductor.

3. In a departmental inquiry conducted, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that in both the instances the respondent did not issue tickets to the concerned passengers. However, the explanation for non-issuance of tickets given by the conductor was acceptable, hence, misconduct alleged against him was held to be not proved.

4. The Disciplinary Authority to whom the said report was submitted on consideration of the same came to the contrary conclusion and disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and held the misconduct alleged in regard to both the charges against the respondent was established hence, imposed a punishment of termination.

5. The above order of the Disciplinary Authority gave rise to a labour dispute No. 112/92 on the file of the Labour Court, Jodhpur.

6. Before the Labour Court, both the parties consented that the Labour Court could decide the case on the basis of evidence and material available on the file of the domestic inquiry without seeking to adduce any additional evidence and on that basis the Labour Court heard the arguments of the parties and examined the evidence that was brought on record at the time of the departmental inquiry. It was examined the order made by the Disciplinary Authority and after discussing the evidence it came to the specific conclusion that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that though the ­respondent had not issued tickets to certain passengers, he had no intention to cause loss to the Corporation and the explanation for non-issuance was justified, therefore, the respondent could not have been found guilty of the misconduct charged against him. It incidentally also recorded a finding that the Disciplinary Authority did not give an opportunity to the respondent before reversing the finding of the inquiry officer and that the order of the ­Disciplinary Authority was not a speaking ­order since it did not contain adequate and suitable reasons for differing from the opinion of the Inquiry Officer. In view of the above finding the Labour Court set aside the termination of the services of the respondent workman holding it to be illegal and unjustified. It also directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of dismissal from service.

7. As stated above the appellant preferred writ petition challenging the said award before a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court who by a short order setting aside the award of the Labour Court and remanded the same back to the said court directing the said court to give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, even though either of the parties had sought such a prayer.

8. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench which after considering the material on record agreed with the Labour Court that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was not established and upheld the direction of the Labour Court in regard to reinstatement and arrears of pay.

9. In this appeal Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly contended that when the finding of the Inquiry Officer as affirmed by the Labour Court was that the respondent had not issued tickets in both the cases in r