The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner had a right of a statutory appeal against the order of termination and could avail alternative and efficacious remedy available under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court emphasized that the principles of Service Law cannot be applied under Labour Law and that the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute is the Labour court under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.

( 1 ) LIST has been revised. None is present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel is present. I have perused the entire records.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 28. 6. 1997, annexure-13 to the writ petition. He further prays for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the change of place of enquiry from Varanasi to Jaunpur Depot and that departmental proceedings may be initiated afresh thereafter.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 21. 5. 1996 by the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as UPSRTC ). A domestic enquiry was held in pursuance of the charges of misconduct, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The charge against the petitioner was that on 18. 9. 1996 while on duty, he took Bus No. UAQ-9351 after completing all the necessary official formalities, from kashipur depot and proceeded to Jaunpur depot. He halted at Varanasi Cantt. Bus Station, where he had an altercation with another driver Sri Mohan Lal of the Varanasi Depot (Gramin) of Bus no. UP65h/863. During altercation the petitioner is alleged to have pushed Sri Mohan Lal and tried to run the Bus over him as a result of which Sri Mohan Lal sustained bodily injuries and while being taken him to the Government Hospital, Varanasi, he died on the way.

( 4 ) HE thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 7759 of 1997 before the Court praying for quashing the impugned order of suspension dated 21. 6. 1996 and also for a direction to the respondents not proceed with the departmental enquiry. He also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to provide security to him to enable him to attend the enquiry proceedings, in case it was not possible to change the place of enquiry from Varanasi to some other place.

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and the circumstances brought on record, or held that no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed on 4. 3. 97 with the observations that the petitioner may approach the Appointing authority for change of the place of enquiry, in case the enquiry proceedings have not been concluded. It was further held that it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Appointing authority for redressal of his grievance in regard to non-payment of his subsistence allowance.

( 6 ) IT is averred in the writ petition that the copy of the judgment dated 4. 3. 1997 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, was submitted by the petitioner to Appointing Authority on 15. 3. 1997 by registered post alongwith the representation for changing the place of enquiry from Varanasi depot to Jaunpur depot.

( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the enquiry proceedings had been completed by that time and on 14. 5. 97 a show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why the services of the petitioner may not be dispensed with forfeiting his entire salary during the suspension period. The petitioner was granted 15 days time for filing the reply of the show cause notice, which was replied by him on 30. 5. 1997 by registered post. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the petitioner after the death of Sri Mohan Lal went to Jaunpur depot and after parking the Bus ran away from the Bus Station without giving any information to any authority concerned. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice, though several dates were fixed, but the petitioner neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor he submitted any reply to the charge-sheet and the show cause notice. The enquiry was concluded much before the passing of the order by this Court. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that again