Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15237 of 2022

Petitioner :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Respondent :- Vishram Singh And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- U.S. Singh Visen

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jamal Ahmad Khan

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent

workman.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the award of the

Labour Court, Agra dated 20.12.2021 in Adjudication Case No.

70 of 2019 between the petitioner - UPSRTC and its

workman/conductor - Vishram Singh. By that award, the

Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement with 50%

backwages. The adjudication had arisen upon the following

reference made to the Labour Court, vide order dated

02.04.2019:

"Kya sevayojkon dwara shramik Sri Vishram Singh putra Sri Baburam

(parichalak) ki sevayen dinank 21.08.2014 se samapt kiya jana uchit va

vaidhanik hai ? Yadi nahi to ukt sambandhit shramik apne sevayojkon se

kya labh/hitlabh pane ka adhikari hai aur anya kis vivran sahit."

3. Upon exchange of pleadings, the Labour Court first framed a

preliminary issue as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry.

Vide order dated 09.04.2021 that preliminary issue was decided

in favour of the respondent workman. The domestic enquiry

was found to be vitiated. No challenge has been pressed as to

that order in the present proceedings.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed and he was granted

opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove

the charge of misconduct levelled against the respondent

workman. The charge pertains to 19 passengers who boarded

and travelled on the bus of the petitioner-corporation without

tickets on 06.08.2013.

5. According to the petitioner, it had examined Ashok Kumar.

Copy of the testimony of the said Ashok Kumar recorded by the

Labour Court is marked as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

Perusal of the same reveals, during cross-examination, the said

witness clearly stated the names of the passengers who may

have boarded the bus of the corporation and who allegedly

travelled without tickets, were neither noted nor were known to

him. He also admitted to have not checked the cash, at the

relevant time. No other evidence was led by the petitioner to

prove the charge of serious misconduct levelled against the

respondent workman.

6. Last, it has been submitted, the respondent workman had

attained the age of superannuation in the month of May 2021

whereas the award was made subsequently in December 2021.

Therefore, the relief of reinstatement could never be granted to

the respondent workman.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the record, insofar as no challenge has been pressed or

raised to the order declaring the domestic enquiry to be vitiated,

no interference is warranted to the order dated 09.04.2021.

8. Second, in face of lack of evidence to prove the charge the

Labour Court has rightly disbelieved the same. The essential

ingredients of the misconduct were not proved. Neither names

of the passengers who are alleged to have travelled without

tickets were disclosed nor cash was checked nor there was any

corroborative material brought before the Labour Court as may

have led to reasonable belief that the respondent workman had

allowed certain passengers to board and travel on the bus of the

corporation without buying proper tickets. The evidence led by

the petitioner was wholly doubtful and such as could never

inspire any confidence. Clearly, the Labour Court has erred in

reaching the conclusion that the punishment awarded was

wholly disproportionate to the allegation levelled.

9. Insofar as the respondent workman is not before this Court

and it has been fairly stated by learned counsel appearing for

the respondent workman that he would be satisfied if reduced

backwages than awarded are paid to him, the said issue