Holding

Issuance of tickets on the basis of instructions of the checking staff cannot legalise the illegality committed by the employee, so the termination stands.

Summary

The case involved a bus conductor employed by the Regional Manager Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation who collected fares from twenty passengers but failed to issue tickets or record their details in the way‑bill. During a checking operation the transport inspector directed the conductor to issue the tickets and make the entries, after which the conductor was terminated and the termination was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal. The Uttarakhand High Court, however, reinstated the conductor, holding that the tickets had subsequently been issued and only the way‑bill entries were missing. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that issuing tickets on the inspector’s instructions does not cure the earlier illegality of not issuing tickets at the time of fare collection, and therefore the termination was justified. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the termination of a bus conductor for not issuing tickets and not making entries in the way‑bill is justified under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether issuance of tickets after the fact, on the direction of checking staff, legalises the earlier omission and defeats the ground for termination.
Whether the High Court erred in reinstating the employee despite the findings of the Industrial Tribunal.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

Industrial Disputes Acttermination of servicebus conductorticket issuanceway‑billUttarakhand High CourtSupreme Courtreinstatement

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 813

t REGIONAL MANAGER UTTARANCHAL RD. TPT. CORPN. A
V.
THAN SINGH & ANR.
(C.A. No. 471 of 2008)
JANUARY 17, 2008
B
''
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

* UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Bus conductor
carrying passengers without issuing tickets though fare
collected - Checking staff directing to issue tickets to c
passengers and make entries in way Bill - Tickets issued
thereafter - Termination of service - Reinstatement by High
Court - Held: Not correct - Issuance of tickets on basis of
instructions of checking staff cannot legalize the illegality
committed by employee - Thus, order of High Court set aside
0
- _Matter remitted back to High Court.
Transport inspector carried out checking operation
and found that respondent no. 1-bus conductor though
collected the fares from 20 passengers traveling in the
bus but did not issue tickets nor made entry in way Bill E
for 23 passenger.s. The checking staff directed
respondent no. 1 to issue tickets to those passengers and
on issuance thereof, to make entries in the way bill.
Thereafter, on departmental enquiry, service of
respondent no.1 was terminated. Tribunal upheld the F
termination order. However, High Court holding that tht:!
tickets were issued to the passengers but only entries
were not made in the bill, directed re-instatement. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High G
-t Court, the Court
HELD: Respondent No. 1 employee himself accepted
that though he had collected the fare, he had not issued
tickets to 20 passengers and had only issued tickets to
813 H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A three passengers. The confusion arose because the High -t
Court apparently proceeded on the basis that after the
tickets were issued only the entries in the way bill were to
be recorded. That was not so. Issuance of tickets on the
basis of the instructions of the checking staff cannot
B legalize the illegality committed by the respondent No. 1.
That being so, the approach of the High Court was clearly
wrong and the conclusions drawn were contrary to the
Jt
"
materials on record, thus, the impugned order is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the High Court. [Para 7] [816-
G B, C, D, E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 471 ·
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2005 of
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 690
D
(M/S) of 2005.
).._ -
Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant.
Brij Bhusan for the Respondents. Jo
'

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
F the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred <I. -
to as the 'employee'). 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
'Tribunal') in Adjudication Case No. 21 of 1995.
G 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
t-
Respondent No.1 was appointed as a conductor on
21.11.1989 under the Appellant-Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the 'Corporation'). On 8/9.9.1990 the appellant
was the conductor in Bus No. UP 78-9254. The Transport
H
REGIONAL MANAGER UTTARANCHAL RD. TPT. 815
CORPN. v. THAN SINGH & ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]

i .. Inspector as a part of the checking operation stopped the bus. A
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 B
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
c
made under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short the 'Act') 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 ha,d in the enquiry report D
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
E
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 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 F
but without back wages.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation submitted that the findings recorded by
the H.igh Court are clearly contrary to record. It was not a fact G
that the tickets had been issued as observed by the High Court.
-r 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 H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
8 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
c 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
D 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-
E 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
F consideration in accordance with law. .... -
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without
any orders as to costs.
N.J . Appeal allowed.
.G
i-