YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition involves with the interpretation of sub-section (2a) of Section 6 (the Section 6 (2a)) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the State Act) and the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding or before the labour court. FACTS ( 2 ) SRI Suresh Kumar Karnwal (the contesting respondent) was a conductor in U. P. State Road transport Corporation (the corporation ). A checking squad checked his bus on harldwar-Uttarkashi route on 3. 1. 1986 and found 27 out of 39 passengers to be without ticket. The contesting respondent, after an inquiry, was removed by an order dated 2. 2. 1980 and his balance pay for suspension period was forfeited. FINDINGS AND PUNISHMENT ( 3 ) THE contesting respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court under the State Act. The labour court has recorded following findings : (i) The departmental enquiry was fair and proper. (ii) 27 out of 39 passengers were without tickets. (iii) The contesting respondent is guilty of starting the bus without realising the fare. (iv) The charge of realising the fare from the passengers and misappropriating the amount is not proved. On these findings, the Labour Court held : the removal of the contesting respondent is not proportionate to the misconduct : the punishment is severe : and the contesting respondent is entitled to be reinstated. The Labour Court imposed punishment ; for realisation of Rs. 337. 50, the fare of 27 passengers : and stoppage of one increment (not effective in future ). Hence, the present writ petition by the Corporation. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION ( 4 ) I have heard Sri Sameer Sharma and Sri Vinod Sinha learned counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination : (i) What is the scope of the Section 6 (2a) of the State Act? (ii) What is the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding or before the Labour Court ? is misconduct required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or on the preponderance of probability ? (iii) Has the Labour Court applied the correct principles in this case? 1st POINT : SCOPE OF SECTION 6 (2a)Scope of Section 11 A--The Central act. (ii) What is the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding or before the Labour Court ? is misconduct required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or on the preponderance of probability ? (iii) Has the Labour Court applied the correct principles in this case? 1st POINT : SCOPE OF SECTION 6 (2a)Scope of Section 11 A--The Central act. ( 5 ) THE powers of the Labour Courts or the Tribunals while Judging the validity of the punishment awarded by an employer, before insertion of Section 11a1 of the Central Act and section 6 (2a)a in State Act, were limited. The Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s. Firestone tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management (the Firestone ). while dealing with powers under Section 11a of the Central Act. summarised the law : when a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the satd enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be Justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or malafide. But this law changed with the inaertaion of the Section 11ain 1971 in the Central Act ; and the subsection (2a) in the Section 6 in 1978 in the State Act. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the Firestone case has interpreted the scope of the Section 11a of the central Act and held that the labour court. (i) has power to reappraise the evidence produced in the domestic inquiry or the evidence adduced before it (where it is permitted): (ii) may arrive at a finding different than the finding in the departmental enquiry, and (iii) may come to the same finding, regarding misconduct yet it may award lesser punishment, different from the employer for the cogent reasons. This has been elaborated and consistently followed. Lets consider if the Section 6 (2aj of the state Act confers similar jurisdiction. Central Act and State Act--Similar jurisdiction ( 7 ) THE Section HA of the Central Act empowers the labour Court to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal of an employee. if the Court is satisfied that order. . . . . was not justified. Lets consider if the Section 6 (2aj of the state Act confers similar jurisdiction. Central Act and State Act--Similar jurisdiction ( 7 ) THE Section HA of the Central Act empowers the labour Court to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal of an employee. if the Court is satisfied that order. . . . . was not justified. the Sub-Section 6 (2a) of the State Act is differently worded. It does not use the words namely--satisfied that the order. . . . was not justified ; though it uses the words, may direct the setting aside. . . . . on such terms and conditions. . . as the authority. . . . . may think fit and the words "award. . . . . lesser punishment. . . . . as the circumstances of the case may require, as the Central Act. Does it make any difference? Is jurisdiction of the labour court under the State Act wider than the Central Act? I dont think so. The word may used in the State Act neither confers unlimited discretion, nor concedes unlimited powers lo the Labour Court under the State Act. It can set aside the order of dismissal or discharge only if it was unjustified, The scope and jurisdiction under Section 11a of the Central Act and under Section 6 (2a) of the State Act are similar. 2nd POINT : STANDARD OF PROOF ( 8 ) MISCONDUCT may be subject-matter of a criminal trial as well as a departmental proceeding. But these proceedings are different, operate in different fields, have different scope and objectives. ( 9 ) THE scope of criminal trial is to determine if a person has committed an offence against the law of the land and to punish him. The scope of a departmental proceeding is to determine if an employee has committed misconduct (even if it constitutes a crime) and to consider his retention in service. Preponderance of Probability--Not beyond reasonable doubt. ( 10 ) THE rules relating to the appreciation of evidence in these two proceedings are different. In a criminal trial, the Evidence Act is applicable : the departmental proceeding is not bound by the evidence Act (though broad principles apply ). They are judged on different standard of evidence. The degrees of proof in the two are different. ( 10 ) THE rules relating to the appreciation of evidence in these two proceedings are different. In a criminal trial, the Evidence Act is applicable : the departmental proceeding is not bound by the evidence Act (though broad principles apply ). They are judged on different standard of evidence. The degrees of proof in the two are different. A person may be sent to jail by a criminal court but departmental proceeding cannot do so. It is for this reason that higher degree of proof. beyond reasonable doubt, is required before the criminal courts. Whereas in a departmental inquiry, preponderance of probability is sufficient--whether a reasonable man could have come to the same conclusion. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court has explained it in its different decisions as follows : a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof reacquired is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Union of India v. Sardar bahadur. 1972 (4) SCC 618 . The standard of proofs for a successful prosecution before criminal court. . . . . is one of beyond all reasonable doubts, in the (departmental inquiry ). . . . . is one of probability. Bharat Coking Coal ltd. v. B. K. Singh. 1994 (69) FLR 1078. But the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal triai. . . . . The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. The test laid down by various judgments of this Court is to see whether. . . . . a reasonable. man, in the circumstances, would be justified in reaching that conclusion. High Court of Judicature at bombay v. U. Singh, 1997 (76) FLR 532 . This has been further elaborated by the different High Courts. Labour Court--Standard of proof same as in a Departmental proceeding ( 12 ) THE Labour Court has held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper, but has re-assessed the evidence. There is no illegality in this ; the Labour Court now has such jurisdiction. But the labour Court, while reassessing the evidence, has to apply the same principles as are applicable in a departmental proceeding. It cannot apply the standard of proof as are applicable in a criminal Trial. There is no illegality in this ; the Labour Court now has such jurisdiction. But the labour Court, while reassessing the evidence, has to apply the same principles as are applicable in a departmental proceeding. It cannot apply the standard of proof as are applicable in a criminal Trial. Has it done so in this case ? 3rd POINT : PRINCIPLES--THEIR application ( 13 ) THE finding of the labour court has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Judgment. The first three findings are against the contesting respondent and are not challenged. But in regard to the fourth finding, namely, realisation and misappropriation of the fare, the labour court has used contradictory words. At one place, the labour court has observed that the charge of realising the fare from the passengers and misappropriating it. is not proved ; at the other place, the labour court held that this charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not clear if the labour court has looked into the evidence in the light of standard of proof as in a criminal trial-of beyond reasonable doubt : or like in a departmental proceeding on preponderance of probability. The award of the labour court is illegal. ( 14 ) THERE is another illegality. The Corporation has issued departmental instructions regarding duties of a conductor. A division bench of this Court in Sri Krishna Sharma v. Assistant regional Manager, while taking into account these instructions, has held : if a passenger entered into a bus and he did not have a ticket, then responsibility was of conductor and, therefore, inference [of removing the conductor) drawn by opposite party [the corporation) cannot be said to be erroneous, since petitioner (conductor) failed to perform duties as provided in the Rules, it was misconduct and his services could be dispensed with. The labour court has not referred to the duties of a conductor and the inference to be drawn from it. CONCLUSION ( 15 ) THE first three finding mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment are upheld. But the fourth finding in favour of the contesting respondent, regarding n on-realisation and non-misappropriation of the fare, is set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed. The case is sent back to the labour court for re-decision in accordance with law at an early date. But the fourth finding in favour of the contesting respondent, regarding n on-realisation and non-misappropriation of the fare, is set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed. The case is sent back to the labour court for re-decision in accordance with law at an early date. The Labour court will award the punishment as the circumstances of the case may require, uninfluenced by any observation made in this case. The parties will appear before the labour court on 25. 10. 1999. .