AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

(Oral)

1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the correctness of the award dated 24.03.2004 (hereinafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, allowing the claim of the Respondent workman.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent workman was working as a conductor with the petitioner department. It is alleged that on 15.11.1994 the respondent was on duty when his bus was checked by the checking staff and it was found that the respondent had taken the due fare of ₹67/- from a group of three and a half passengers but had failed to issue tickets to three passengers. In pursuance of the same, the respondent was placed under suspension on 02.12.1994 and a chargesheet dated 02.12.1994 was issued to the respondent workman.

3. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were conducted against the respondent department and the enquiry officer vide order dated found that the charges alleged against the respondent workman were not established. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and found that the charges stood proved against the respondent workman. The disciplinary authority further issued show cause notice dated 05.06.1995 for removal of the respondent from services.

4. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the said show cause notice, however, the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a reply to the show cause notice before the authority, however, the same was not found satisfactory and the disciplinary authority passed the punishment of removal from services against the respondent with effect from 14.08.1996.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent workman filed an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner department, who set aside the punishment of removal and directed that the respondent may be reinstated in service with no back wages for the intervening period and he be brought back to the initial stage of his timescale for two years from the date of the original punishment.

6. The respondent workman thereafter joined back the services of the petitioner and then raised an industrial dispute against the modified punishment awarded to him. The same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal with the following terms of reference:

“1. Whether the punishment imposed upon Sh. Rajender Prashad to bring him on initial pay scale of conductor for two years is illegal and/or justified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

2. Whether Sh. Rajender Prashad is entitled to intervening period wages w.e.f. 14.8.96 to 13.1.98 and if so what directions are necessary in this respect?”

7. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order observed that the punishment imposed upon the respondent workman was illegal and without any basis, further observing that the workman was entitled to his wages on his regular pay scale and for arrears of the reduced wages imposed to bring him to the initial pay scale for the period for two years along with regular wages for the period from 14.08.1996 to 13.01.1998.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

9. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2005 granted stay to the effect and operation of the impugned award.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the modified punishment awarded to the respondent workman pursuant to the order of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner department.

11. She submits that the Industrial Tribunal can only interfere with the punishment accorded by the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. She submits that the punishment accorded to the respondent workman in the present case does not meet that threshold and thus, the le