JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-workman aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, (4), U.P., Kanpur dated 28th November, 1989, passed in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 1987, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
2. The following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication:-
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jhifr ljkst] iq= Jh Nsnh yky ifjpkyd] Qrsgiqj fMiks dks vius vkns'k fnukad 24-4-1986 }kjk fuycu vof/k 23-7-85 ls 24-4-85 ds vo'ks"k osru ls oafpr djuk rFkk fnukad 25-4-86 ls lsok;sa lekIr djuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]"k ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] fdl frfFk ls ,oa fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr \**
3. After receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to both the employers as well as the petitioner-workman, who have put in appearance and filed written statements, rejoinder affidavits and also adduced evidence. The case set up by the petitioner-workman, in short, is that he was working as conductor with the employers. On 11th July, 1985, Sri K.P. Sriyastava, T.S. inspected the Bus in which the workman concerned was preparing ticket of the passengers and found that the workman was issuing tickets to the passengers by stopping Bus on way. On his report, he was served with charge-sheet. The matter was being enquired by Sri M.M. Hassan, who illegally and dishonestly terminated the workman from service with effect from 25th April, 1986.
4. As against the aforesaid case set by the workman concerned, the employers have set up the case that the workman was working with the employers as conductor. On 11th July, 1985 it was found that 29 passengers were travelling without ticket and on the report of T.S., he was served with the charge-sheet and his services have been terminated with effect from 24th April, 1986, which is legal. From 23rd July, 1985 up to 24th April, 1986 his salary was not paid because he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, therefore, he is not entitled to get any benefit.
5. The Labour Court framed the relevant issues and after considering the pleadings exchanged between the parties and material evidence on recordf has arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the employers was fair and proper and no defect could be pointed out by the workman concerned, but on the question of punishment, the Labour Court found that the punishment of termination of service of the workman is too severe as compared to the gravity of the charges. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with punishment of stoppage of three years increment in salary and further that the workman shall not be entitled for any wages, except the subsistence allowance, which has been paid during the period of suspension and further held that he is also not entitled for the salary for the period from 23 rd July, 1985 up to 24th April, 1986.
6. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I found that there is no infirmity with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court after considering the material evidence on record, which may warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nor any such infirmity or illegality can be pointed out by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- workman, which may demonstrate that the award impugned in the present writ petition is suffering from the manifest error of law. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed