JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an award dated 12.11.1998 passed by Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi in adjudication case No. 63 of 1997. 3. The State Government having formed the opinion that an industrial dispute exists, referred the following matter for adjudication to the labour Court aforesaid: "KYA SEVAYOJAKO DWARA APANE SHRAMIK SRI SHAMBHU CHAUBEY SON OF SRI RAM SAGAR CHAUBEY, PAD PARICHALAK Kl SEWAYE DINANK 11.9.1989 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI TO SHRAMIK KYA HITLABH PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI ?” 4. Facts of the case are that respondent No. 3-workman was a conductor in petitioner-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 12.12.1985 the workman was deputed as conductor on Bus No. 4500 plying under contract with the corporation on Allahabad-Jaunpur route. The checking authority on checking the bus found that five passengers out of a total of 50 passengers from Phoolpur to Badshahpur, were travelling without ticket even though the respondent No. 3 had already realised fare from them. On the basis of report submitted by the checking authority, a charge-sheet dated 21.6.1989 was served on respondent No. 3, who also submitted his reply. After holding domestic enquiry, the appointing authority being satisfied that charges of serious misconduct contained in the charge-sheet stood fully proved against him, removed the respondent No. 3 from service vide order dated 11.9.1989. 5. Aggrieved the workman filed Writ Petition No. 43140 of 1992, was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.3.1995 and Special Appeal No. 252 of 1995 preferred against the judgment in the writ petition, was disposed of vide judgment dated 2.7.1996 granting liberty to the workman to approach the labour Court. Subsequently, the workman concerned raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his service which was referred to the Labour Court, Varanasi as stated above. 6. The parties filed their respective written and rejoinder statements as well as documents before the labour Court and also adduced oral evidence. 7. On the basis of pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether departmental enquiry held by the employers was fair and proper or not? Vide order dated 12.10.1998, the labour Court held that enquiry conducted by the employer was fair and proper. Thereafter the labour Court considered the dispute on merits and came . 7. On the basis of pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether departmental enquiry held by the employers was fair and proper or not? Vide order dated 12.10.1998, the labour Court held that enquiry conducted by the employer was fair and proper. Thereafter the labour Court considered the dispute on merits and came . to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of workman to misappropriate any revenue of the Corporation. After discussing the evidence on record and on hearing the parties, the labour Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of removal from service of respondent No. 3 was too excessive as such it set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service and full back wages with minor punishment of stoppage of one year wage increment with future effect. 8. It is against the aforesaid finding of the labour Court that present writ petition has been filed challenging its validity and correctness on the ground that labour Court has failed to appreciate that the Corporation could not keep any employee on its rolls who would cause financial loss to it. 9. It is stated that labour Court has failed to consider the fact that workman concerned had also been punished on several occasions for similar misconduct which indicated that he was an habitual offender. 10. It is then submitted that the labour Court has erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 6(2-a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in any case the workman was not entitled to any back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that bus of the Corporation was checked about four Kilometers away from the originating bus station yet the workman concerned had not been able to issue tickets to five passengers which a conductor is supposed to issue within two kilometers. It shows that he had ill intentions. 12. Counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence and records produced before it, that there was no intention of the workman to embezzle any amount of the Corporation. It shows that he had ill intentions. 12. Counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence and records produced before it, that there was no intention of the workman to embezzle any amount of the Corporation. He submits that admittedly there were 45 passengers to whom the workman had already issued tickets but he could not issue tickets to five passengers by the time the bus was checked after four Kilometers though it is a rule that bus can be checked within two kilometers, therefore, he submits that it was due to mistake of the driver who had driven the bus beyond four kilometers distance and had not stopped it before two kilometers from starting the bus from the station so that tickets of all passengers could be made. 13. At the time of admission, the following interim order was passed in this petition on 27.1.2000 : “Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Sri B.P. Yadav. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. Learned Standing Counsel may also file counter affidavit within the same time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no justification for respondent No. 2 to award back wages to the respondent as he did not perform his duties as conductor for the last 12 years. However, it was stated that petitioner was willing to reinstate respondent No. 3 on the post held by him in terms of the impugned award. Under the facts and circumstances, it is hereby directed that operation of impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the condition the petitioner pays 1/4th of the total amount awarded by respondent No. 1, reinstates respondent No. 3 on the post held by him and pays the current salary as and when it falls due month to month, failing which this order shall stand vacated automatically.” 14. The workman respondent No. 3 has been reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th of the total amount in terms of the aforesaid interim order. 15. The workman respondent No. 3 has been reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th of the total amount in terms of the aforesaid interim order. 15. After considering all facts and circumstances, the labour Court has come to the conclusion that services of the workman were illegally terminated and he is entitled to continuity of service with full back wages and accordingly substituted the punishment of removal from service by stoppage of one year wage increment with future effect. In fact the labour Court has given a finding that the workman was not carrying passengers without ticket with any malafide intention and the employers could not prove that he is guilty of taking passengers without ticket. There may be circumstances as the labour Court has observed, where a bus conductor may not be able to issue tickets to all passengers in certain set of facts and circumstances as in the present case that 50 passengers had boarded the bus at the previous station and he could not have issued tickets to all 50 passengers during the time the bus was checked. 16. After hearing Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that it was not only the duty of the driver to have stopped the bus within two kilometers to enable the workman concerned to issue all tickets but being conductor he too could have got the bus stopped earlier. However, in admitted set of facts, he had already issued tickets to 45 passengers and it appears that due to paucity of time, he could not prepare tickets of five passengers when the bus was checked. There was no independent evidence of any passenger that the workman had not issued tickets to 5 passengers deliberately. If the driver of the bus continued to drive the bus, it cannot be said that respondent workman-conductor was completely not at fault for non-issuance of tickets to all passengers in the bus. 17. There was no independent evidence of any passenger that the workman had not issued tickets to 5 passengers deliberately. If the driver of the bus continued to drive the bus, it cannot be said that respondent workman-conductor was completely not at fault for non-issuance of tickets to all passengers in the bus. 17. In my opinion, it appears that there has been some technical violation of the rule by the driver and the conductor in not stopping the bus within two kilometers from the bus station so as to enable the conductor to issue tickets to all passengers of the bus but it would not reflect any bad intention on the part of conductor for not being able to issue tickets to all 50 passengers in a short time. 18. However, as regards back wages are concerned, since the labour Court has found that there has been some technical violation of rule and has also substituted a lesser punishment, no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for but certainly the workman not be entitled to full back wages in the circumstances as he could have requested the driver to stop the bus to enable him to issue tickets. Therefore, in my opinion, the workman has been reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th of the back wages, that would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and accordingly I hold that the workman will not be entitled for remaining 3/4th of the full back wages as awarded by the labour Court. The impugned award is accordingly modified to the above extent. 19. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is partly allowed with aforesaid modification in the award. No order as to costs. ————