Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)U.P.S.R.T.C vs Mahendra Nath Tiwari & Anr on 11 November, 2005
10. She also places reliance on U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mahendra Nath Tiwari
& Anr., (2006) 1 SCC 118. In this case, one of the charges against the
respondent, who was a bus conductor with the appellant corporation, was
that he was found in possession of 12 used tickets. The Supreme Court held
that possession of the said used tickets, prima facie, suggests that there was
room to doubt the honesty of the respondent. He did not even try to explain
the circumstances of his coming into possession of the 12 used tickets. The
Supreme Court further held that the charges are such that they show a
betrayal of trust placed on conductor by the employer. I may note that in the
present case, the respondent has sought to explain the possession of two
used tickets when he says that they were given to him by the two passengers
W.P.(C) 4759/2001 Page 6 of 17
who did not buy the tickets. However, he has not ventured to explain the
position with regard to the other 10 used tickets.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1