Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs State Of U.P. & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Respondent no. 3 was a Conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, presently known in the State of Uttarakhand as 'Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation'. On inspection made by the officers of the State Road Transport Corporation for consecutive three times between 1986 to 1988, respondent no. 3 was caught carrying passengers without ticket. In one such case, the respondent no. 3 was carrying more than 40 passengers without ticket. Initially warnings were issued and subsequently the respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.7.1988 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and it was conclusively proved that the respondent no. 3 was carrying passengers without ticket and therefore not only the said act was against the department but he also caused financial loss to the department and therefore punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent no. 3 and his services were terminated on 28.7.1989.

Against his dismissal, respondent no. 3 raised a labour dispute before the Labour Court, Haldwani which passed an award on 28.11.1997 in favour of the respondent no. 3 reinstating him in the service along with all consequential benefits.

Order of the Labour Court was challenged by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Corporation before the Allahabad High Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39559 of 1998 and a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while admitting the writ petition has passed the following order on 26.11.1998:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The validity of the award made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. A fine point of controversy has been raised requiring scrutiny by this court.

Issue notice to the respondent no. 2 for which steps shall be taken, in accordance with provisions contained in the Rules of Court, within one week. Respondents be called upon to file counter affidavit within four weeks. List thereafter.

In the meantime, the enforcement of the impugned award shall remain stayed provided:-

(1) the back wages to the extent of 50 per cent payable under the award are deposited with the labour court/industrial tribunal within two months from today;

(2) a sum equal to wages payable to the workman from the date of the award till the last preceding month is paid to the respondent workman within two months from today; and,

(3) wages at the rate admissible under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the succeeding months shall be paid to the respondent workman, month by month basis, till further orders of this court.

The back wages so deposited, in terms of this order, shall be invested in some Nationalised Bank by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under an interest earning term deposit scheme.

In the event of default in complying with any of the aforementioned conditions, the present stay order shall automatically come to an end."

After carving out of the State of Uttarakhand, the aforesaid writ petition was transferred to this Court and now it has come up for hearing before this Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Labour Court has passed the award dated 28.11.1997 in favour of the respondent no. 3 on a mere technicality i.e. primarily for the reasons that the Enquiry Officer during enquiry had put certain questions to the delinquent employee, thereby holding that the Enquiry Officer has not acted fairly. The finding of the Labour Court was that the Enquiry Officer has acted as the prosecuting officer rather than the Enquiry Officer.

The above finding of the Labour Court is totally perverse inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer is well within his rights to question a delinquent employee and merely because certain questions have been put to it will not prejudice the enquiry. Moreover, the action on the part of the respondent no. 3 is repeatedly of the same nature. The fact that he was carrying passengers without ticket has been conclusively proved by the documents and by the statements of those officers who had inspected the bus midway to its destination. There have been three such cases. In the first case when the bus being plied by the respondent no. 3 on Bageshwar-Nainikhet route on 10.2.1986 was inspected midway, it was found that out of 34 passengers six were travelling without ticket and respondent no. 3 had already realized the fare from these passengers. In the second case on 7.6.1986, when the bus being plied by the respondent no. 3 on Masi-Almora route was checked enroute, out of 57 passengers 43 were travelling without ticket and respondent no. 3 had already realized the fare from these passengers. Similarly, in the third case on 3.6.1988 when the bus being plied by the respondent no. 3 was inspected midway, he was found carrying 10 passengers from Bhowali to Pines without ticket.

Having perused the papers on the record and the award of the Labour Court and considering the nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no procedural irregularity has been made in this matter. The procedural irregularity pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the Enquiry Officer putting questions cannot be accepted.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. The award dated 28.11.1997 is set aside. This Court has been informed that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the respondent no. 3 reached the age of superannuation in November, 2016 and retired from service. It has also been informed that in terms of the order dated 26.11.1998 and in compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent no. 3 continued to get the last pay drawn. Nevertheless by the said order dated 26.11.1998, the Corporation/petitioner was asked to deposit an amount equal to half of the back wages in the fixed deposit scheme with a nationalized bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informed that in compliance of this order, the half of the back wages has been deposited before the Labour Court, Haldwani which has been kept in the fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and which is presently earning interest. Let the amount so deposited by the petitioner/Corporation through the Labour Court be forthwith released along with the accrued interest in favour of the respondent no. 3 or his nominee within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.

Since the respondent no. 3 being a Conductor in the State Road Transport Corporation was also depositing his contribution with the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, the EPFO authorities are also directed to release the amount to the credit of the respondent no. 3 in his favour or in favour of his nominee forthwith within four weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order.