JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.2.1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) mainly on the ground that the impugned award of the Labour Court, is perverse illegal and erroneous, because the Labour Court grossly erred not considering the fact that the erring workman conductor had not made entries in the way-bill and left it blank and admittedly there was one person, who was found travelling without ticket; whose ticked was made by checking authority along with the penalty, and that the Labour Court had wrongly not relied upon the statement of Sri V.V. Singh, the Traffic Superintendent on the ground that other authorities who had checked and allegedly issued the ticket and signed the document, had not been produced, as witness in support this case.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512, wherein it has been held that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated Rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. It is not necessary to produce the other passenger witness.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents belied the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and in support of his case relied upon a decision, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. The State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 1991 (62) FLR, 263, wherein it has been held that in the circumstance of the case, there was nothing wrong, if Labour Court has drawn adverse inference from the fact of non-production of main officer, who had conducted the checking in the bus and submitted its report against the workman. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that this fact of the case is not applicable to the present case.
5. I have looked into the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and find that the Labour Court while passing the impugned order found that the charges levelled against the workman had not been proved at all in respect with the travelling of 22 passengers without ticket, it was only found that the way-bill had not been filled up. The Labour Court found that neither any offence has been committed by the workman nor any special charge was proved. It came to the conclusion that at the most the workman had completed the closing of the way-bill with some delay, but on this very charge, the petitioner should not have been removed from service vide order dated 30.7.1988 and the punishment awarded did not commensurate the charges. On the basis of the said findings the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman along with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
6. I have looked into the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has informed this Court that the workman during the pendency of the writ petition has retired on superannuation, at the age of 58 yeas. By an interim order dated 21.7.1992, the operation of the impugned award had been stayed, provided the workman was reinstated and paid his salary month to month. In the present case, I find that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 30.7.1988 was too harsh and did not commensurate the charges. After thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the relevant material and the evidence adduced by the parties brought on record, the respondent No. 2-Labour Court has arrived at a well reasoned award dated 24.2.1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award suffers from any illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. More so, the said findings of fact, arrived at by the Labour Court-respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the impugned award has been passed, being based on relevant material on record, is not open to challenge before this Court while exercising its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the workman has already retired the petitioner is directed to pay the entire back wages with all consequential benefits to the workman, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
7. In the facts, circumstances of the case and observation made herein before the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.