Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S U.P.S.R.T.C.Jhansi v. Ganga Prasad Pal - WRIT - C No. 7085 of 1995 [2006] RD-AH 12478 (28 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7085 of 1995

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi vs.  Ganga Prasad Pal and another


Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Respondent no.1 Ganga Prasad is a conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C.).  At the time of checking it was found that he was carrying three passengers without ticket.  Accordingly punishment of reversion on the original pay scale for seven years was awarded  by order dated 26.9.1986.  Punishment order was passed after due enquiry.  Dis-satisfied with the punishment industrial dispute was raised by the respondent no.2.  Matter was referred to Labour court in the form of adjudication case no.267 of 1993.  Presiding Officer, Labour court, Kanpur U.P. set aside the punishment order through judgment and order dated 11.11.1994.  The said order of the Labour court is under challenge in this writ petition by the employer U.P.S.R.T.C.  

Labour court in para-8 of its award has held that the charge was not proved.  This is clearly against the own admission of the employee himself as re-produced in para-7 of the award.  Employee-respondent no.1 Ganga Prasad admitted that three passengers had boarded the bus from Makrawa however they insisted that they would pay the fair from Sumerpur hence their tickets were not made.  The employee further stated that from Sumerpur only nine passengers had boarded and he had given tickets to all of them.  According to the employee himself three passengers had boarded the bus from Makrawa but their tickets were not issued.  Explanation given by the conductor was utterly bogus.  If a passenger refuses to give fair conductor has got ample power to ask him to leave the bus.  Explanation that ticket was not issued because those three passengers insisted that ticket should be issued to them from Sumerpur is rather fantastic.  Even from Sumerpur ticket was not issued to those passengers.  Checking party issued the ticket to them from Sumerpur alongwith penalty.  The explanation of the employee made his guilt worse.  He was charged that he did not issue tickets to three passengers who had boarded the bus from Sumerpur.  He admitted that those three passengers had boarded the bus from Makrawa an earlier stop.

In my opinion even the punishing authority had taken a lenient view by awarding only the punishment of reversion to original pay scale for seven years (in this regard reference may be made to A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 405 U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. M.N.Tewari and another).

Accordingly, I find that the award of the labour court is patently erroneous in law.  Misconduct was rather admitted by respondent no.1.  Writ petition is therefore allowed.  Award dated 11.11.1994 by Presiding officer, Labour Court, Kanpur in Adjudication case no.267 of 1993 is set aside.  Punishment order dated 26.9.1986 is revived.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.