Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Tyagi and Ors. – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8047 of 2010
Decided On : 01-07-2019
For the Appellant : Samir Sharma and Sunil Kumar Misra
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Alok Kumar Srivastava and S.P. Singh
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – U.P.Industrial Dispute Act –Section 4K –Workman was employed with petitioner as driver –Report was submitted against workman saying that, while he was deputed to operate Bus, vehicle was attempted to be checked by officers of Corporation – They signalled bus to halt for check –He did not do so – Instead, he speed away due to which no checking, as intended, could be carried out –Charge-sheet founded on report was issued to workman – He was placed under suspension pending inquiry by earlier order –Reply to charge-sheet was submitted by workman, and departmental inquiry was initiated against him –Workman was served with show-cause notice – He was provisionally reinstated in service, pending outcome of disciplinary proceedings – Workman submitted reply to show-cause notice, and by order, workman was removed from service –Workman thereupon raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication –Tribunal inferred that proceedings of inquiry were not fair or without bias –Rules governing their domestic inquiry by employer were observed in breach and inquiry was done merely as eye wash on basis of which no action taken, could be sustained –Held, Tribunal would do well to decide all issues together; but that would not inhibit Tribunal from taking evidence on merits of charge, if on reconsideration, it still finds violation of principles of natural justice or inquiry not to be fair or otherwise flawed, in whole or in part –Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is hereby quashed – Petition Partly Allowed. (Paras 18 to 21),
Facts of The Case:
Workman was employed with petitioner as driver –Report was submitted against workman saying that, while he was deputed to operate Bus, vehicle was attempted to be checked by officers of Corporation – They signalled bus to halt for check –He did not do so – Instead, he speed away due to which no checking, as intended, could be carried out –Charge-sheet founded on report was issued to workman – He was placed under suspension pending inquiry by earlier order –Reply to charge-sheet was submitted by workman, and departmental inquiry was initiated against him –Workman was served with show-cause notice – He was provisionally reinstated in service, pending outcome of disciplinary proceedings – Workman submitted reply to show-cause notice, and by order, workman was removed from service –Workman thereupon raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication –Tribunal inferred that proceedings of inquiry were not fair or without bias –Rules governing their domestic inquiry by employer were observed in breach and inquiry was done merely as eye wash on basis of which no action taken, could be sustained.
Finding of The Court:
Tribunal would do well to decide all issues together; but that would not inhibit Tribunal from taking evidence on merits of charge, if on reconsideration, it still finds violation of principles of natural justice or inquiry not to be fair or otherwise flawed, in whole or in part –Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is hereby quashed.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is directed against an award dated 2.12.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (4), UP, Agra in Adjudication Case No. 6 of 2001.
2. The Industrial Tribunal has ordered respondent No. 1-workman (for short 'the workman') to be reinstated in service with effect from the date of his disengagement i.e. on 18.5.1998 granting continuity of service and all back wages, including allowances. The said award dated 2.12.2000 is hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned award.'
3. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman. Both sides have exchanged affidavits. Accordingly, this petition was admitted to hearing on 5.4.2019, and, heard forthwith with the consent of parties. Judgment was reserved on that day.
4. Shorn of avoidable detail, the workman was employed with the petitioner-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'employer') as a driver. He was posted in the Agra region. A report dated 25.4.1997 was submitted against the workman saying that on 24.4.1997, while he was deputed to operate Bus No. UAE-9668 plying on Agra-Jaipur route, the vehicle was attempted to be checked by the officers of the Corporation, to wit, Sardar Singh, Samar Singh and Shaukat Ali, all Assistant Traffic Inspectors. They signalled the bus to halt for a check at Sikandra. The report shows that though the workman saw the signal asking him to stop, he did not do so. Instead, he speed away due to which no checking, as intended, could be carried out. This checking en route during commercial operation was intended for the purpose of ascertaining, if there were any ticketless passenger being ferried on board, in order to make personal gains dishonestly by the conductor in connivance with the driver, at the cost of the employer's revenue.
5. A charge-sheet founded on the aforesaid report was issued to the workman on 20.5.1997. He was placed under suspension pending inquiry by an earlier order dated 25.4.1997. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the workman, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. It appears that at the departmental inquiry two witnesses for the establishment were examined, to wit, Samar Singh and Shaukat Ali who appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 12.8.1997. The witnesses supported the employer's case and one of them, that is to say, Sardar Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector was cross-examined by the workman also. The workman declined to cross-examine the other witness Shaukat Ali. The workman himself appeared in support of his case as a defence witness and stated that his reply to the charge-sheet, may be taken to be his statement at the inquiry. He further stated that he has nothing further to say or to produce any other witness or evidence in his support.
6. It appears from the stand taken by the workman in his defence that has been referred to in detail in the impugned award, the workman said that the place where he is claimed to have been signalled to stop for a checking at Sikandra, had a long line-up of trucks parked on both sides of the road/highway. It is quite possible that on that account he could not notice the signal to stop. He, however, denied any complicity in the matter, and said that at Sikandra, he had boarded off passengers and taken others on board. Thus, there are no chances of the checking team not being able to access the bus in order to carry out the desired checking. It has also figured as one of the workman's grievance, that the bus conductor who alongwith him was placed under suspension on the same charges, after inquiry, has been reinstated in service, whereas the petitioner has been deprived of all his salary for the period of suspension and has been ordered to be removed from service. He submits that this differential treatment b
