Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C.) has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow on 31.7.1996 whereby, order dated 28.4.1986 removing respondent No. 2, Mahendra Kumar Saini from the service of U.P.S.R.T.C was set aside. The said award by the Labour Court was published on 11.6.1996.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.K.Singh and Shri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C and have also perused the material available on record.

2. The facts of the case as deduced from the pleadings available on record are that respondent No. 2, Mahendra Kumar Saini was appointed as Fitter Grade-II in the service of U.P.S.R.T.C at Varanasi and thereafter, he was transferred to Faizabad. Containing certain allegations relating to some misconduct, a charge sheet against the respondent No. 2, Mahendra Kumar Saini was issued on 27.7.1984 by the Service Manager, Faizabad. The allegations contained in the said charge sheet were to the effect that the respondent No. 2 did not perform his duties assigned to him and further that despite reporting for duty, he did not perform the work assigned to him which was causing adverse impact on the working of other employees in the workshop.

3. Respondent No. 2 submitted his reply on 17.8.1984 and the Service Manager not being satisfied with the said reply issued another charge sheet on 7.5.1985 against him. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report on 14.3.1986 stating inter alia therein that the respondent No. 2 has failed to adduce any evidence which could exonerate him of the charges levelled against him. Based on the said enquiry report, order of removal was passed on 28.4.1986 by the Service Manager. It appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 2 and under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute, which was referred to, was as to whether removal from service of the workman Mahendra Kumar Saini son of Late Bageshwari Prasad, Fitter Grade-II on 28.4.1986 by the employer is proper and /or lawful, If no, then to what benefit/compensation, workman is entitled to and with what other details.

4. A written statement by the U.P.S.R.T.C was filed. The respondent No. 2 also filed his reply to which rejoinder was also filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Before the Labour Court a preliminary issue was framed to the effect as to whether the domestic enquiry against the workman was fair and legal. The said preliminary issue was decided by the Labour Court on 16.4.1992 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent No. 2 and it was held therein that the order of removal dated 28.4.1986 is bad in law for the simple reason that the Enquiry Officer has proceeded on a wrong legal premise that it was for the workman to prove his innocence. Thereafter, fresh opportunity was given to the U.P.S.R.T.C to prove the charge against respondent No. 2 by the Labour Court. However, except for filing written statement no witnesses were produced nor any other evidence was adduced by the U.P.S.R.T.C to prove the charges against the workman. It was argued before the Labour Court on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. that since in the domestic enquiry, the official who had reported the matter against respondent No. 2 had made his deposition and proved the documents, as such the enquiry report submitted in the domestic enquiry itself should be treated to be valid evidence and the matter be decided in favour of the petitioner.

5. From a perusal of the impugned award dated 31.7.1996, it is evident that after decision of the preliminary issue against the petitioner, no other evidence to establish the charge against the workman, respondent No. 2 was led by the U.P.S.R.T.C despite having been given several opportunities by the Labour Court in this regard. The Labour Court has thus, a