Accordingly the impugned award before it was set aside by the High Court and the respondent No.
It was number a fact that the tickets had been issued as observed by the High Court.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent No.1 was appointed as a companyductor on 21.11.1989 under the Appellant Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
A reference was made under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act at the prayer of the respondent.
1 Employee was directed to be re instated in service with companytinuity of all retrial benefit but without back wages.
The Tribunal came to hold that the order of termination was legal and justified and the companycerned workman was number entitled to any relief.
It is to be numbered that the enquiry officer had in the enquiry report numbered that the companyductor had issued the tickets later though there were numberentries in the way bill.
It was also numbered that when the bus was checked, the tickets were issued to the passengers but only entries were number made in the way bill.
Proceedings were initiated against the erring employee and his services were terminated on the basis of the materials companylected during departmental enquiry.
The High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent came to hold that the companycerned employee had taken fare from 20 passengers in presence of checking staff.
Arising out of SLP C 3762 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
21 of 1995.
The companyductor was made to issue tickets to passengers to whom tickets had number been issued.
On 8/9.9.1990 the appellant was the companyductor in Bus No.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the findings recorded by the High Court are clearly companytrary to record.
The inspector made an entry for closing of ticket issuance and he also directed the employee to make an entry in respect of the 23 passengers in the way bill.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Uttranchal High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the employee .
Challenge before the High Court was to the award dated 27.7.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, and Labour Court Haldwani in short the Tribunal in Adjudication Case No.
