U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Both these writ petitions filed against the same award dated 30.9.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Agra in Adjudication Case No. 147 of 1991.

The backdrop of the case is that Respondent No. 3 workman was working as conductor in Aligarh region of the Corporation. On 11.4.1987 when he was deputed to work on bus No. URB 3343 plying on Mathura-Aligarh route it was checked enroute by the Checking Authorities i.e. Traffic Superintendent along with the Assistant Regional Manager, Aligarh and it was found that the workman had made certain irregularities and interpolations in the way bills. One of the charges against Respondent No. 3 also was that he misbehaved with the Checking Authorities and instigated the passengers against them.

Another report was submitted against Respondent No. 3 to the effect that on 10.4.1987 when he was deputed on bus No. URB 3343 which was scheduled to make three trips between Aligarh and Mathura route and only one trip was made as the Respondent No. 3 went from Aligarh to Mathura and stayed back on that day.

The workman was suspended vide order dated 13.4.1987 and a charge sheet was issued to him. Reply having not been found satisfactory a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which the Assistant Regional Manager, Hathras was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report returning a finding that the charges of misconduct were proved against the workman and on that basis a show-cause notice dated 16.8.1988 along with a copy of the enquiry report was served upon Respondent No. 3 requiring him to show cause as to why he be not removed from service.

Thereafter the appointing authority considered the entire material on record and passed an order of removal from service of Respondent No. 3 on the ground that it was not in the interest of the Corporation to retain him in service. The workman was accordingly removed from service vide order dated 5.12.1988 and his balance pay for suspension period was forfeited.

The workman then raised an industrial dispute. The State Government vide order dated 11.7.1991 referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 147 of 1991:

On receipt of summons the parties filed their respective written statements and a preliminary issue was also framed and submitted ocular and documentary evidence.

The Labour Court by its award has returned the following findings:

From perusal of the impugned award it is evident that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman concerned had not in fact embezzled any amount of the Corporation and there could be some irregularities or negligence for doing his work. The aforesaid award dated 30.9.1997 which was enforced by publication on the notice board on 17.1.1998 is under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that it was not necessary to record statement of passengers by the Checking Authorities so as to prove the charges against the delinquent employee.

It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the departmental enquiry strict rules of evidence are not required and that the Labour Court has only considered the misconduct dated 11.4.1987 and has failed to consider the other misconduct dated 10.4.1987, hence exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court was illegal, arbitrary and perverse while deciding the quantum of punishment it is also submitted that since dispute was raised by the workman after much delay he is not entitled for any relief.

It appears that it is for this reason that Respondent No. 3 was not entitled to any back wages and the Labour Court has erred in awarding 50% back wages to the workman concerned.

Per contra, Shri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the Respondent workman has submitted that admittedly the Labour Court has found the defence of the Respondent to be illegal and not in accordance with law; that once the Labour Court has recorded a finding that there was no embezzlement made by the worker full back wages ought to have been awarded to him by the Labour Court and that it is for this reason Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26215 of 1998 has been filed by him challenging the aforesaid deprivation of 50% back wages.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that though it is true that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman has not embezzled any amount, hence the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman in service with 50% back wages was proper and justified. The Labour Court has also recorded a finding that the workman has been negligent in performing his duties, therefore, in my opinion, considering the averments made in both the writ petitions and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties the impugned award does not require any interference by this Court. The workman has already been reinstated in service in view of-the interim order of this Court dated 28.5.1998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19485 of 1998 and is still working in the Corporation.

For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.