Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the judgement of the Labour Court dated 9.10.1996 published on 29.1.1997 in Adjudication Proceedings No. 118 of 1994.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased-respondent No. 1 was a conductor in the UPSRTC, Unnao-Nawabganj. On 15.9.1982 the checking squad conducted a surprise check on the bus and found 36 passengers travelling without ticket. A report was submitted on 20.9.1982 and, thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1 and an enquiry was conducted and by order dated 24.5.1983 respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service.

3. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court by its award dated 18.4.1987 in Adjudication Proceeding No. 227 of 1985 and the order of dismissal dated 24.5.1983 was set aside on the sole ground that the said order has been passed by the Assistant Regional Manager, who was not competent to pass the said order. However, the competency of the Assistant Regional Manger to pass penalty order came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Nagendra Prakash Sharma v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad and others, 1988 UPLBEC 155 and this Court by its judgement dated 10.12.1987 upheld the Ordinance No. 9 of 1987, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) (Appointing Authorities) Ordinance 1987 in so far as the said ordinance sought to overrule decision of the Courts on the ground that the Assistant Regional Manager lacks the competency to pass the orders of punishment.

4. The Division Bench in the case of Nagendra Prakash Sharma (Supra) held as follows :

21. The submission that the Ordinance purports to overrule the decision of the Court is also without substance as it is firmly established that a legislature can remove the defects in the Act or rule from retrospective effect. It is not legislative overruling but removal of defects thereby rendering the law failed, Tirath Ram Rajendra Prasad, 1913 SC 405; M/s. Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1985 SC 1683.

22. Similarly the argument that Ordinance suffers from vice of Article 14 appears to be without any merit. Validation of provision with retrospective effect or enactment of a law or remove defects in existing law from back date cannot be prima facie held to be discriminatory. Argument that Ordinance defines appointing authority from June, 1981 and validates action taken by such authority under the resolution of 1974 whereas fresh delegation has been given in 1986, and, therefore, the action is arbitrary is misconceived. Appointing Authority under the ordinance and even under the fresh exercise of powers being the same no plea of discrimination can be raised. Delegation in 1986 was restored to because of the decisions given by this Court. Earlier resolution passed in 1974 had been superseded. Till then Ordinance had not been issued. In any case the delegation of power under regulation framed in 1981 does not in any manner contravene the provisions of the Ordinance.

5. In the Adjudication Proceeding No. 118 of 1994 the Labour Court, however, going into the merits of the case recorded a finding that the respondent No. 1 had not been given an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and that the entire enquiry proceedings had been based upon no evidence and further that the employer was unable to prove the charges even in the adjudication proceedings. The Labour Court directed that the respondent No. 1 will be reinstated in service with full back wages.

6. I have heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, who was substituted by his heirs.

7. At the stage of admission of this petition on 19.1.1998 this Court had directed that the respondent No. 1 shall be reinstated in service but the implem