ORDER
S.S. Jha, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court.
2. Respondent No. 1 Satish Suryavanshi was holding the post of Conductor. His services were terminated vide order dated April 30, 1998. The respondent No. 1 then filed an application under Sections 31, 61, 62 of
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.P.I.R. Act’),
challenging the order of termination. After
recording evidence Labour Court recorded a
finding that the domestic enquiry was
conducted properly and reasonable opportunity
was provided to delinquent employee. The
Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry
was proper and there is no infirmity in the
domestic enquiry. However, the Labour Court
interfered with the quantum of punishment on
the ground that the passengers have travelled
around 25 kilometres without paying the tickets
and held that misconduct and dishonesty of
respondent is not proved. The Labour Court
directed reinstatement of petitioner without
back wages. In an appeal, Industrial Court
modified the order of the Labour Court and
granted back wages to the respondent. The
Appellate Court held that since the charges
against the respondent were not proved,
therefore, he was eligible to get the wages.
From the facts of the case, the conductor started
preparing tickets and the passengers were
travelling in the bus. Therefore, the employee
should not be debarred from payment of all
back wages and, directed that half back wages
be paid to respondent. The appeal filed by
petitioner-Corporation was dismissed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M. P Road Transport Corporation v. Surender Singh, 1998-I-LLJ-306 (M.P.) and submitted that as regards question of dishonesty the respondent was caught red-handed and in the light of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Devkinandan Tiwari v. State Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh reported in 1990 MPLJ 653, the punishment imposed upon the respondent has wrongly been set aside. Once the charges in domestic enquiry against the delinquent employee are proved and it is found that the conductor was carrying passengers without tickets and bus has travelled a long distance and tickets were not issued though the conductor had ample time to do so, in such circumstances inference of dishonesty would be reasonable.
4. Counsel for the petitioners then relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Sahai Yadav v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors., reported in 1998 LLR 154. In this case, the bus had travelled around 38 kilometres and the passengers had travelled only 3 kilometers without the tickets being issued to them, the intention of conductor was not found to be bona fide. Further reliance was placed on the Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mool Singh and Anr., reported in 1995(71) FLR 735, to press the same contention.
5. Considering the facts of the case, once the Labour Court and Industrial Court have not set aside the finding regarding domestic enquiry and have held that the respondent has not issued tickets, thus the act demonstrates dishonesty on the part of the respondent. As such, direction for reinstatement and payment of back wages are improper and are in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Labour Court under M.P.I.R. Act.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order, Annexure P/1, passed by Member, Industrial Court, and order, Annexure P/2, passed by Labour Court are set aside and the application of respondent No. 1 for reinstatement without back wages is dismissed.
7. Petition succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs.