Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The present appeal compels us to wonder whether a Legal forum should allow itself to imagine facts and conceive of perverted situations to brush aside the material brought on record and then for contrived reasons arrive at a conclusion that there was possibly no embezzlement or personal gain. The first Respondent, a conductor in the service of the U.P. State Transport Corporation (for short, "the Corporation"), despite the factum of carrying 25 passengers without ticket being proved, is relieved and assuaged by substitution of punishment of dismissal with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect taking aid of Section 6(2-A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act') by the Labour court in invocation of the doctrine of reformation and principle of mercy, and the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction has given the stamp of approval to the award by treating it as just and defensible fundamentally resting its conclusion on the foundation that the controversy hinged on the factual score. The reasoning, if we allow ourselves to say, constrains us to ruminate whether the Labour Court has been swayed away by the concept "forgiveness is the economy of the heart¹" and dominantly affected by the conception "mercy among the virtues is like the moon among the stars²", totally remaining oblivious to the basic principle that when the workman shatters the "institutional trust" and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and belief of the employer, does he deserve any leniency. It is not the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to duty and obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of consideration for imposition of punishment.

2. The necessitous factual depiction is the first Respondent was serving as a Conductor under the Appellant, Corporation. On 24.10.1992, while he was the conductor of the bus No. UAN 8711, he allowed 25 passengers to travel in the bus without ticket. A report being received from the Assistant Traffic Inspector of the area, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, he was found guilty and accordingly was visited with the punishme........