The judgment establishes the principle that the entitlement to back wages and the fairness of the departmental inquiry must be carefully considered in cases of termination of services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP No. 5192 of 1984 preferred by State of Punjab and another as well as CWP No. 3259 of 1985 filed by Hari Ram workman against the Award dated 19.4.1984 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, whereby he set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.1978 vide which the services of the workman Hari Ram were terminated by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and directed the latter to reinstate him (Hari Ram) in service with all benefits of its continuity from the date of the said order except that the workman will not be entitled to wages for the back period i.e. the period preceding the date of this Award.

2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 19.4.1978 when the bus on which Hari Ram was the conductor was checked at Rai, it was found that he had collected full fare from Delhi to Ambala from two passengers but the tickets issued to them were short of Rs. 3.20/-. Further on 21.4.1978, when he was on duty on bus No 4406 on route No. 68, during the course of checking at Shahbad, two passengers were found without tickets from whom he had collected Rs. 2.60 as fare. On 17.2.1978, he was on duty on bus No. 1301 on route No. 27, when he was checked at Bhankerpur, it was found that he had not issued the tickets to three passengers though he had charged Rs. 3.60/- from them when they were travelling from Zirakpur to Bhankarpur after having boarded the bus from Zirakpur. During inquiry, it was found that he had embezzled a sum of Rs. 9.40/-, which he had recovered from the passengers and as its consequence, his services were terminated vide order referred to above. He raised dispute with regard to the legality of the said order contending that it was illegal and this dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).

3. The learned Labour Court framed the following issue:

"Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is vitiated."

4. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court set aside the termination order with a direction as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned Award, both the parties have filed these petitions.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned Award with due care and circumspection.

6. Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State urged with great eloquence that albeit departmental inquiry has been found to be fair and proper nonetheless, by wrongly calling in aid the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman with all benefits of its continuity of service without taking a serious note of the gravity of his guilt in view of the observations rendered in re : Rajender Singh R. vs. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2000(3) SCT 1 and Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh, 2006(5) Services Law Reporter 721.

7. Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Workman countered these arguments by urging with full force that on all the three charges, the findings of the Labour Court are in favour of the workman. That being so, the Labour Court was required to allow the back" wages as well. Thus, protanto, the Award is liable to set aside in view of the ratio decidendi laid down in re : Hari Palace, Ambala City vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 The Punjab Law Report 720 and Sukhdev Singh vs. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, 2004(2) Recent Services Judgments 184.

8. I have well considered the rival contentions. In re : Rajender Singh R. (supra), the Apex Court held that the appellant would thus be entitled to continuity of service, but, would not be entitled to back wages. Palpably, these observations do not subserve the contention of Mr. Chaudhary. The fact