Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Etawah Region vs State of U.P. and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties who agreed for final disposal of the writ petitions at the admission stage.

First writ petition has been filed by the employer and is directed against award dated 18.11.2008 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Firozabad in adjudication case No. 45 of 2007, true copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 3 Brijesh Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 19/21 September, 1996 was valid and just or not.

The workman was a conductor whose services were terminated after domestic inquiry. The Labour Court found several allegations levelled by the workman against the management and its officers to be baseless. The main allegation against the petitioner was that he was absent without leave for a very long time. The report against the petitioner had been made by Sri H.C. Saxena, Senior Center Incharge. However, before the Inquiry Officer Sri S.K. Yadav, Assistant Regional Manager, appeared. The workman demanded presence of Sri H.C. Saxena for proving the report given by him. The Labour Court held that in this manner the workman was deprived of his right to cross examine the complainant. It has also been found by the Labour Court that on 26 and 27 December, 1995 Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of witnesses of the Management and closed the inquiry without providing opportunity of defence to the workman. Accordingly, it was held that domestic inquiry was not fair. It was also held that the punishment of dismissal from services was disproportionate. However, in para 12 of the award Labour Court has mentioned that on 27th December, 1995 workman was absent. Ultimately the Labour Court directed reinstatement with backwages with effect from the date on which workman had filed application before Conciliation Officer i.e. on 1.11.1999.

Copy of order of dismissal dated 19.9.1996 is Annexure 2 to the writ petition in which it is mentioned that report regarding absence of the workman was made by Sri S.K. Yadav Assistant Regional Manager, Shikohabad depot on 18.4.1995, As mentioned in dismissal order, in the said complaint period of unauthorised absence of the workman was mentioned as follows:

23 days in July 1994; 11 days in August 1994; 20 days in September 1994; 25 days in October 1994; 16 days in November 1994; 16 days in December 1994; 15 days in January 1995; 23 days in February 1995; 17 days in March 1995; Total 182 days; From 1st April till 18.4.1995; the date on which report was given; Total 182 days.

It is mentioned in the dismissal order that no reply to the charge sheet was filed by the workman. Inquiry Officer gave the report against the workman copy of which was sent to the workman along with show cause notice dated 31.5.1996. The workman filed reply to the show cause notice. The reply was that Inquiry Officer was not impartial, that he (workman) was given information to appear quite late; mat due to traffic jam he could not appear in the inquiry on 27.12.1995, that on 26.12.1995 he had demanded attendance register, conductor wise register and duty allotment register, however, only attendance register was supplied. Regarding traffic jam on 27.12.1995 it was held in the punishment order that on the same date Sri Sudarshen Lai was present on behalf of Management along with attendance register and the inquiry continued for a long time.

In the punishment order it was also found that even out of 108 days presence during the aforesaid period the workman performed the duty only on 35 days and on one day he was present in Court.

In the written statement filed by the workman before the Labour Court copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition it was not denied that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that for 182 days petitioner was absent without any leave was incorrect. The only, reason given in para 3 was that the, wife of the workman had died leaving behind two daughters aged 5 year and 3 years.

Firstly, there was absolutely no deficiency in the inquiry, full opportunity had been provided to the workman. Secondly, the workman did not even file reply to the charge sheet. Even before Labour Court he did not deny the unauthorised absence for the period mentioned in the dismissal order. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that full opportunity of hearing was not provided, still it will not make any difference as the workman could not show that he had any defence. In such a situation denial of full opportunity of hearing or even denial of opportunity of hearing is immaterial vide Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan,

Accordingly, I find that impugned award is patently erroneously in law and liable to be quashed. First writ petition is, therefore allowed impugned award is set aside.

As far as second writ petition is concerned it is directed against the same award by the workman and the grievance of the workman is that he should have been awarded full backwages. In view of my decision that even order of reinstatement and payment of partial backwages is illegal, second writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.