The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to award a lesser punishment to a workman in lieu of discharge or dismissal, even if it finds that the inquiry into the charges against the workman was fair and proper, but the discretion conferred on the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not absolute and must be exercised judicially, in good faith, and with regard to all relevant considerations.

S. D. Agarwala, J.

1. THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award, dated 30 May 1977, published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated 29 June 1977, passed by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, in Adjudication Case No. 59 of 1976, between the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the corporation, and NarSingh Shukla, respondent 3, in the petition.

2. RESPONDENT 3, Nar Singh Shukla, was working as a conductor in the corporation and one Sayeed Ullah as a driver in the corporation. On 14/15 July 1973, Sayeed Ullah was the driver and respondent 3, Nar Singh Shukla. was the conductor in bus No. USP 7689, 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 Sayeed Ullah, the driver, and respondent 3. On 29 August 1978, chargesheets were issued both to respondent 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 J that he 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 23 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 3, while it passed a lesser punishment on Sayeed Ullah, the driver of the bus.

Respondent 3 thereafter asked the State Government to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. The State Government under S. 10, Sub-sec. (1), CI. (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 3 was illegal and that the corporation should have awarded the same punishment to respondent 3 which they had awarded to the driver of the bus Sayeed Ullah,

3. 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 3. Nar Singh Shukla, were entirely different and more serious than those levelled against Sayeed Ullah, who was the driver of the bus.

4. 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 con- sideration before the Supreme Court in INdian Iron and Steel Company v. Their workmen [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 unlimited and when a dispute arises, INdustrial Tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified