Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 471 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Regional Manager Uttaranchal Rd. Tpt.Corpn.
RESPONDENT:
Than Singh & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) 3762 OF 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 \021employee\022). 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 \021Tribunal\022) in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1995.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent No.1 was appointed as a conductor on
21.11.1989 under the Appellant-Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the \021Corporation\022). On 8/9.9.1990 the appellant
was the conductor in Bus No. UP 78-9254. The Transport
Inspector as a part of the checking operation stopped the bus.
There were 48 passengers traveling in the bus and out of them
20 did not have any ticket and there was no entry made in the
Way Bill for 23 passengers. The employee made a statement
that he could not issue tickets though he had collected the
fares from 20 persons. The conductor was made to issue
tickets to passengers to whom tickets had not been issued.
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. Proceedings were initiated
against the erring employee and his services were terminated
on the basis of the materials collected during departmental
enquiry. A reference was made under the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the \021Act\022) at the prayer
of the respondent. The Tribunal came to hold that the order of
termination was legal and justified and the concerned
workman was not entitled to any relief. It is to be noted that
the enquiry officer had in the enquiry report noted that the
conductor had issued the tickets later though there were no
entries in the way bill.
4. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the
respondent came to hold that the concerned employee had
taken fare from 20 passengers in presence of checking staff. It
was also noted that when the bus was checked, the tickets
were issued to the passengers but only entries were not made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
in the way bill. Accordingly the impugned award before it was
set aside by the High Court and the respondent No. 1-
Employee was directed to be re-instated in service with
continuity of all retrial benefit but without back wages.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation submitted that the findings recorded by
the High Court are clearly contrary to record. It was not a fact
that the tickets had been issued as observed by the High
Court. As a matter of fact, after detection by the checking staff
direction was given by the Traffic Inspector to issue tickets
and to make entries in the way bill for regularizing the travel of
the passengers.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the
report of the enquiry officer submitted that the High Court has
correctly recorded the facts.
7. It appears from the statement of the respondent No.1-
employee that he himself accepted that though he had
collected the fare, he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers
and had only issued tickets to three passengers. The
confusion appears to have arisen because the High Court
apparently proceeded on the basis that after the tickets were
issued only the entries in the way bill were to be recorded.
This is really not so, because the respondent No.1 himself had
accepted that tickets had not been issued to 20 passengers.
The material on record also shows that the checking staff with
a view to regularize the entries and regularizing the travel of
the passengers had directed issuance of tickets to those 20
passengers to whom respondent No.1 had not issued tickets.
This is evident from the fact that the Tribunal had
categorically noted that 20 passengers were issued tickets by
the checking staff and the respondent No.1 was directed to
make entries in the way bill. Issuance of tickets on the basis
of the instructions of the checking staff cannot legalize the
illegality committed by the respondent No.1-employee. That
being so, the approach of the High Court was clearly wrong
and the conclusions drawn are contrary to the materials on
record. Since the High Court has not considered the materials
in the proper perspective, the impugned order is set aside and
the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any
orders as to costs.