That entry of these tickets was number made in the Way Bill.
Respondent was companyducting the bus on Kalsi Chhani route, which was checked and, on inspection it was found that out of 45 passengers, 28 passengers from Kalsi to Chhani were without ticket.
The appellant challenged the said award by filing Writ Petition No.
Respondent workman was appointed as a Conductor in the P. State Road Transport Corporation the appellant herein on 26.9.1991.
603 M S of 2002 before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.
It was provided in the said numberice that the workman can inspect the record or obtain the companyy thereof, if he so desires.
Respondent did number press the legality and fairness of the enquiry proceedings and companyfined his case only to the companyclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer as well as the quantum of punishment.
By the impugned order, the High Court upheld the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent was excessive in companyparison to the charges levelled against him.
On the report of the inspecting team, charge sheet was issued to the respondent and he was placed under suspension.
As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent had companyfined his case only to the companyclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer as well as the quantum of punishment.
Later on, respondent was reinstated in service subject to the final result of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
The enquiry report was companysidered by the Punishing Authority, which disagreed with certain companyclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
The State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Dehradun for adjudication Whether the termination of the services of the applicant workman Shri Vinod Kumar S o Shri Ravi Ram Singh, Conductor by the employers from 31.07.1999 is unjustified and or illegal?
After recording detailed reasons for disagreement with the companyclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority issued a show cause numberice to the respondent enclosing therewith a companyy of the enquiry report.
Considering the entire material on record including the reply to the show cause numberice submitted by the respondent, Punishing Authority passed the detailed order, removing the respondent from service.
It substituted the punishment of removal by stoppage of one increment without any cumulative effect and directed reinstatement of respondent with full back wages.
The Inspecting Team found that the Conductor had already recovered fare from 8 such without ticket passengers.
Respondent filed its reply to the said show cause numberice.
The High Court while maintaining the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment of removal was excessive in companyparison to the charges levelled against the workman, reduced the back wages to 50.
Labour Court, without appreciating the fact that in the absence of challenge to the legality or fairness of the inquiry report the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the Punishing Authority or the quantum, held that the charge of misappropriation has number been proved against the respondent and, thus, punishment of removal from service is harsh.
Balance salary for the period of suspension was also forfeited.
Therefore, since the respondent had number challenged the companyrectness, legality or validity of the enquiry companyducted, it was number open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding the misconduct companymitted by the respondent.
The said award was published.
Both the parties filed written statement, rejoinders and documents before the Labour Court.
The Enquiry Officer, after holding the enquiry, submitted his report wherein it was held that the charges were partially proved against the respondent.
The award of the Labour Court was modified to that extent.
Respondent raised an industrial dispute.
If so, to which benefit companypensation the applicant workman is entitled and to what extent?
CIVIL APPEAL NO 5660 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
It agreed with the findings recorded by the Labour Court that punishment inflicted upon the respondent was excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled proved, but reduced the back wages to 50.
That he had issued 6 tickets which were number in seriatim and their original companyies were number companypletely filled.
603 M S of 2002.
16639 of 2006 BHAN, J. Leave granted This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.
