The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and proper domestic inquiry, as well as the need for a fresh decision based on the observations made by the court.

( 1 ) THOUGH on record there are three applications dated 10. 10. 1995, 28. 2. 1996 and 21 8. 1996 filed by Sri V. K. Barman, Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent, for listing the stay vacating application alleged to have been filed by him on 3. 5. 1995 along with counter-affidavit, but no such stay vacating application is on the record along with counter-affidavit. The office has also reported vide its reports dated-19. 7. 1996 and 28. 4. 2003 that no stay vacating application along with counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. On 9. 9. 2003 I had asked Sri Samir sharma, Counsel for the petitioner, to inform Sri Barman to be present when the case is taken up after lunch, but no one was present for the contesting respondent. Sri Samir Sharma states that he had informed Sri Barman in writing vide his letter dated 9. 9. 2003 that the case would be taken up after lunch. The said letter of Sri Samir Sharma dated 9. 9. 2003 is placed on the record.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the Standing Counsel.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case arc that the UP. State Road Transport Corporation was constituted with effect from 1. 6. 1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and it succeeded in toto the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways. Since the Corporation did not frame service regulations under Section 45 (2) (c) of the Road Transport corporation Act, 1950 till 19. 6. 1981, the old Rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the Roadways Organization continued to apply.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 was initially appointed as a Conductor on temporary basis with effect from 13. 5. 1976 and was posted at Jhansi. While he was conducting Bus No. UTP 3849 on 24. 2. 1977 on Jhansi Unnao route, the bus was checked by the checking authorities (Sri Sardool Singh, traffic Superintendent, Chunniganj, Kanpur along with Sri R. S. Negi, Assistant Regional manager (CBS), Kanpur and Sri R. K. Duggal, Assistant Traffic Inspector. Respondent No. 3 was found to be carrying 11 passengers without tickets from Moth out of a total of 62 passengers.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 was placed under suspension by an order dated 25. 2. 1997 and a charge-sheet dated 25. 2. 1977 was duly served on him. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 28. 4. 1977 and as the same was not found to be satisfactory, domestic inquiry proceeded against him. He was given an opportunity to defend his case besides affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. The Inquiry Officer having found the charges proved against respondent No. 3, a show cause notice dated 19. 5. 1977 along with inquiry report was served on him. A reply was submitted by the delinquent workman to the appointing authority who after appreciation of the evidence on record found that the charges stood proved against him. Thereafter by an order dated 29. 6. 1977 the delinquent workman was removed from service.

( 6 ) AN industrial dispute was raised by the delinquent workman (Respondent No. 3) regarding his removal from service. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the State Government referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, U. P. (II), Kanpur, where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 132/80 : -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 7 ) THE case of the workman before the Labour was that since the same authority held the domestic inquiry as well as passed the order of punishment it was bad and also that he was not afforded full opportunity in the domestic inquiry proceedings. The case of the employer before the Labour Court was that since the charges against the delinquent workman (Respondent No. 3)stood proved in the inquiry proceedings, he was removed from service and for this reason he was not entitled to any relief. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed the following two preliminary issues:- (i) Whether the reference was bad as