The central legal point established is that in domestic inquiries, the principle of 'preponderance of probability' applies, and the Labour Court's power under Section 11-A should only be exercised if the penalty is excessively harsh and tainted by victimization.

K.M. Thaker, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [hereinafter referred to as "the corporation"] has challenged award dated 22.5.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhuj-Kutch in Reference (LCB) No. 654 of 1996 (Old Reference (LCR) No. 254 of 1994) whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner corporation to reinstate the respondent in service on his original post with continuity of service, however, without backwages.

2. The respondent was employed as conductor with the petitioner corporation. His service came to be terminated pursuant to domestic inquiry in respect of alleged misconduct of re-issuing/punched tickets and not issuing tickets after collecting fare and other charges. The respondent felt aggrieved by the order terminating his service and he raised industrial dispute against the termination order dated 17.11.1993. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court and upon conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award with aforesaid directions.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that on 4.11.1992, the respondent was on duty as conductor on corporation's bus which was enroute from Dudhai to Kotda. The checking squad embarked the bus and conducted the checking during which following irregularities amounting to misconduct were noticed by the checking squad:-

"i. The table of the fare was in a dilapidated condition.

ii. The respondent did not issue tickets to two lady passengers travelling from Dudhai to Kotada inspite of collecting fare of Rs. 2/- from them and thereby pocketed the said amount. On seeing the checking squad, the respondent tried to issue tickets but could not punch them properly.

iii. One passenger traveling from Dudhai to Kotada was issued used ticket after collecting fare of Re. 1/- and the unpunched ticket was taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount.

iv. Two passengers travelling from Dudhai to Navagam were issued used tickets after collecting fare of Rs. 2/- and the unpunched tickets were taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount.

v. Two passengers and a minor traveling from Dudhai to Navagam were issued two and a half used tickets after collecting fare of Rs. 3/- and the unpunched tickets were taken in possession and thereby pocketed the said amount.

vi. The respondent did not issue tickets to one passenger travelling from Dudhai to Navagam inspite of collecting fare of respondent. 1/- from the passenger and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession.

vii. The respondent did not issue ticket to one passenger traveling from Dudhai to Kotada inspite of collecting fare from the passenger and thereby pocketed the said amount. The unpunched ticket was taken in the possession.

viii. The respondent did not show the particulars regarding the sold tickets in the way-bill.

ix. Inspite of the fact that as per the fare table, the fare of one ticket from Dudhai to Navagan and Dudhai to Kotada is Rs. 1.25, the respondent collected fare of only respondent. 1/- and therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 1.50 was ordered to be recovered from the respondent."

3.1. The checking squad recorded statements of passengers and subsequently, reported the said incident to the competent authority. After considering the report of the checking squad and supporting material, the petitioner corporation decided to conduct domestic proceedings against the respondent for the alleged misconduct. Therefore, a charge-sheet dated 11.11.1992 alongwith a statement of allegations was served to the respondent and after considering his explanation/reply, departmental inquiry was initiated. The respondent participated in the domestic inquiry. According to the petitioner corporation, sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent. The respondent had examined witness to support and justify his statement