The High Court found that the companyclusions of the Labour Court were companyrect.
Consequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 3.4.1995.
The writ appeal as numbered above, was dismissed on the ground that the same was number maintainable.
The order was challenged before the High Court.
Appellant companyducted domestic enquiry which found him guilty.
It was numbered that if more passengers were carried within the permissible limit, it was fault of the Corporation who did number took timely reformative and remedial measures.
However, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent with full back wages, companytinuity of service and other companysequential benefits.
F 16 on 15.9.1993 when the bus was intercepted by the checking staff.
The basis for this order was number checking of cash bag of the respondent and number examination of ticketless passengers.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent Conductor was companymissioning as such in Bus No.
By order dated 21.10.2005, the learned Single Judge held that the order was companyrect so far as setting aside dismissal order is companycerned, direction for reinstatement and companytinuity of service and companysequential benefits.
The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper on the basis of the memorandum filed by the respondent companyceding to the fairness of the domestic inquiry.
It also did number find any substance in the stand of the Corporation that earlier also on 12 occasions for similar charges punishments were awarded but the respondent did number improve his companyduct.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the primary reason indicated by the Labour Court to hold that the order of dismissal was bad, was the alleged number examination of the passengers to whom the respondent had number issued the tickets.
However, the direction relating to back wages was set aside.
It was found that the respondent had number issued tickets to 20 out of 136 passengers.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the writ appeal number3830/2005 dismissing appeal against the order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17519/2000.
The writ appeal was dismissed as number maintainable and, therefore, the challenge in the present is essential to the order of learned Single Judge.
