JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Balediha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that the opposite party No. 2 was appointed in temporary capacity as Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C. and posted at Lucknow Region. His services were regularized w.e.f 1.7.1981. On the basis of inspection which was conducted on several dates, i.e. 21.7.1985, 5.1.1986, 17.5.1986, 6.6.1986, 7.12.1986, 25.3.1987, 9.4.1987 and 13.4.1987, he was found carrying the passengers without tickets in the corporation buses and as such, a charge-sheet was served enumerating therein eight charges against the opposite party No. 2. In the departmental enquiry, charges levelled against the opposite party No. 2 were proved and as such, his services were terminated. The said action was assailed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Conciliation Officer. As the conciliation proceedings were failed, a reference was made by the State Government which was dismissed by means of an award dated 31st March, 1997.
3. It has been argued before the Labour Court that Mr. R.K. Khanna has been appointed as Enquiry Officer insofar as he has not been appointed by the Managing Director; the order of punishment has not been passed by the competent authority and the documents have not been supplied. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that a finding of fact has been recorded that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed under the order dated 2.3.1989 by the Managing Director and in pursuance thereof, the Enquiry Officer Mr. R.K. Khanna has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. As regards the order of punishment, a finding of fact has been recorded that the same has been passed by the Manager (Personnel) who is the appointing authority and as such, there was no illegality or infirmity in passing the aforesaid orders. With regard to the third question, a finding of fact has been recorded that the documents were duly supplied and the opposite party No. 2 has participated during the enquiry proceedings. He has also cross-examined the witnesses, which were produced before the Enquiry Officer. While passing the award, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the charges were also proved against the opposite party No. 2, but in spite of that it has reduced the quantum of punishment. Being aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the Labour Court was fully satisfied with the conduct of enquiry as well as order of punishment passed by the competent authority including the appointment of Enquiry Officer but it has arbitrarily reduced the quantum of punishment which is beyond its jurisdiction. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment pronounced in the case of Regional Manager RSTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma wherein in para 5 it has been held that though under Section 11-A of Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.
4. Rebutting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Ashok Baledia, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the petitioners had filed the writ petition No. 5084 of 1999 challenging the award dated 31.7.1997 after ten months from date of passing of the order, without explaining the delay, which was dismissed on 1.10.1999. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition which too was dismissed. The order dated 25.1.1992 in which the finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, although the Enquiry Officer had recorded the finding that the charge against the opposite party No. 2 was not proved, no finding was recorded by the punishing authority against the charges 34 and 7. The petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 contested the case before the Labour Court and the Labour Court decided the reference by means of an award dated 31.3.1997. Till date, the award has not been complied with by the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel relied upon the judgments pronounced in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. , U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 309], H.S.Chandra Shekara Chari v. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC and Anr. 1999 (4) Supreme Court Cases 355 and the Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. 1999 (4) Supreme Court Cases 358. The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
5. Keeping in view all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court, while reducing the quantum of punishment, has exceeded its jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Labour Court is set aside.