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.