JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (UPSRTC) to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad dated 22.09.2014 in Adjudication Case No. 18 of 2009. By that award, the Industrial Tribunal had awarded the relief of reinstatement to the respondent-workman, together with full back-wages.

2. The challenge to the aforesaid award has been made on two counts. First, it has been submitted, once the Industrial Tribunal recorded a finding that the domestic inquiry was vitiated, it could not have, directly proceeded to make the final award without allowing the petitioner/management one opportunity to lead evidence to prove charges against the respondent-workman, in the adjudication proceedings. Second, it has been submitted, in absence of any pleading made by the respondent-workman and in absence of any evidence being led by him in that regard, the Industrial Tribunal had completely erred in granting the relief of full back-wages.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be noted in brief. The respondent-workman was engaged as a 'Conductor' by the petitioner-corporation. He was initially charged on 26.09.1997 for carrying passengers without ticket/s on the bus of the petitioner-corporation as also for having lodged bogus first information report. While that proceeding resulted in the order dated 05.08.1997 wherein the respondent-workman was awarded the punishment of dismissal, however, it is on record, that upon appeal, the punishment order was set aside and a fresh inquiry was permitted to be conducted in accordance with law. Upon conclusion of the re-inquiry proceedings, the inquiry report was submitted on 23.10.2001 where upon the Regional Manager of the petitioner-corporation issued a show-cause notice to the respondent-workman calling for his reply.

4. In the meanwhile, on 22.07.1999, a second charge-sheet had been issued to the respondent-workman on an allegation of carrying passengers without ticket on a corporation bus. Arising from that charge-sheet, the Assistant Regional Manager was appointed as inquiry officer who submitted his report on 31.10.2000. The disciplinary authority appears to have issued a notice in pursuance of both inquiries thus concluded against the respondent-workman and thereafter, vide order dated 12.04.2002 dismissed the respondent-workman from service. Against that order, the respondent-workman filed a departmental appeal which also came to be dismissed by order dated 31.01.2005. In such circumstances, the industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman. The following question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad for adjudication:

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk lEcaf/kr Jfed lhrk jke xkSre iq= Lo0 Jh ekrk tru dh lsok,a fnukad 12-04-2002 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugh arks lEcaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks’k ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr A**

5. In the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, both parties filed their written statement. Also, they led evidence. The Industrial Tribunal found, during the domestic inquiry, no evidence was led to prove the charges levelled in the first charge-sheet but, on the last date of the domestic inquiry proceedings, i.e. 30.08.1997, the Assistant Traffic Inspector appeared whose testimony was recorded and inquiry concluded on that date itself without allowing the petitioner any opportunity to cross-examine that witness inasmuch as the petitioner did not appear on that date and he had no notice of the same. With respect to the second charge-sheet, it was found, no witness had appeared to prove those charges.

6. In such circumstance and for other facts and circumstances recorded in the award and to which no dispute had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the two domestic inquiries conducted by the petitioner were held to be vitiated. Then, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to frame the award of