The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to award a lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if the inquiry was found to be proper and fair, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and within the limits of reason and justice.

S. D. AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 30th May, 1977, published in the U. P. Gazette dated 29th June, 1977, passed by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, in Adjudication Case No. 59 of 1976 between the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, and Sri Nar Singh Shukla, respondent No. 3 in the petition.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3, Sri Nar Singh Shukla, was working as a conductor in the Corporation and one Sayeed Ullah as a driver in the Corporation. On 14/15th July, 1973, Sayeed Ullah was the driver and the respondent No 3, Nar Singh Shukla, was the conductor in bus No. U. S. P. 7639, which was proceeding from Gorakhpur to Kanpur. The authorities of the Corporation conducted a check and at the Ayodhya Bus Station it was found that serious irregularities had been committed both by Sri Sayeed Ullah, the driver, and respondent No. 3. On 29th of August, 1973, charge-sheets were issued both to respondent No. 3 as well as to Sayeed Ullah for carrying passengers without tickets, for not stopping the bus for checking and for creating obstruction in checking, it was further alleged against respondent No. 3 that be was issuing blank tickets with the intention of financial gain and that he had not followed the departmental rules. A departmental enquiry was conducted against both the conductor and driver. After the report was submitted a show cause notice was issued on 23rd of January, 1974, to Nar Singh Shukla as well as to Sayeed Ullah as to why they may not be removed from service. It may be stated here that the inquiry against Sayeed Ullah and Nar Singh Shukla was conducted together and the charges were found proved against both of them on the basis of the same evidence on record. The Corporation thereafter dismissed respondent No. 3 while it passed a lesser punishment on Sayeed Ullah, the driver of the bus.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 thereafter asked the State Government to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. The State Government under Section 10, Sub-section (1), Sub-clause (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the matter for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur. The Labour Court, Gorakhpur, decided in favour of the Corporation on the issue as to whether the inquiry was fair and proper but ultimately the Labour Court held that the order of dismissal passed against respondent No. 3 was illegal and that the Corporation should have awarded the same punishment to respondent No. 3 which they had awarded to the driver of the bus Sri Sayeed Ullah.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before us challenging the validity of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, learned Counsel contended firstly, that after the Labour Court found that the inquiry was fair and proper it had no jurisdiction to substitute its judgment in the matter of punishment. Secondly, it was urged by the learned Counsel, that even if the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the order of dismissal the said order was wholly arbitrary as the charges levelled against respondent No. 3, Nar Singh Shukla, were entirely different and more serious than those levelled against Sayeed Ullah, who was the driver of the bus.

( 5 ) IN order to examine the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to examine the scope of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The extent of the power of Industrial Tribunals to interfere with the punishment awarded by a concern where the inquiry was found to be proper and fair came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. v. Their Workmen 1958-I L. L. J. 260 : (1957) 13 F. J. R. 377 : A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 130. It was held by the Supreme Court that the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline but the power is