Point of law : The enquiry was held without any basis and complaint and the charges could not be proved by the petitioners in the domestic enquiry as well as before the tribunal on opportunity given.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Shri Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1. Learned Standing Counsel is present for the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U.P., Lucknow i.e. the opposite party no.3, in adjudication Case No.97 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were several charges against the opposite party no.1, which were proved in the inquiry but without considering the same the award has been passed and the opposite party no.1 has been directed to be reinstated with full back wages, which could not have been done. The full back wages could not have been allowed on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. He relied on H.V.P.N. Ltd and Others Versus Bal Govind; AIR 2017 Supreme Court 617 and Smt. Kewlapati Versus U.P.Lok Sewa Adhikaran, Indira Bhawan Lko and Others; 2918 (2) ALJ 516.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the action was taken against the opposite party no.1 without any basis or complaint with mala fide intention after the opposite party no.1 had deposited the amount collected by him. The inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. Therefore the Tribunal had rejected the inquiry report of the respondents by means of order dated 03.08.2016 and provided opportunity to the petitioners to prove the charges on merit. Even thereafter the petitioners could not prove the charges before the Tribunal also. Therefore the award has rightly been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality or error in the award and full back wages have rightly been allowed in accordance with law because the opposite party no.1 was forced not to work by the action taken by the petitioners illegally and without any basis or complaint whereas the opposite party no.1 was ready and willing to work. He relied on Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Others; (2013) 10 SCC 324, Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and Others; (2016) 6 SCC 541 and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha Srivastava and Others; (2020) 14 SCC 449.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The opposite party no.1 Shri Rizwan Nabi Siddiqui was employed as Conductor on temporary basis in the petitioners corporation. He was placed under suspension by means of the order dated 19.03.2004 and a charge sheet was served requiring him to submit the explanation / reply. Assistant Regional Manager (Finance) Gorakhpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The opposite party no.1 had submitted his reply on 01.05.2004 in which he denied all the charges and submitted that the charges have been levelled against him with mala fide intention. Thereafter an inquiry was conducted. On the basis of which the opposite party no.1 was removed from service by means of the order dated 27.10.2006. The opposite party no.1 had filed an appeal which was dismissed by means of the order dated 17.04.2007. Thereafter he preferred a representation on 16.08.2007 to the Chief Manager, Headquarters, Lucknow which was dismissed by means of the order dated 02.04.2009. Thereafter the opposite party no.1 preferred a Writ Petition No.49049 of 2009 which was dismissed by means of the order dated 28.07.2010 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter an application was preferred to the Conciliation Officer and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. After filing of the written statement by the parties and considering the preliminary issues of the validity of enquiry, it was found that the inquiry is not proper and legal therefore it is vitiated and the petitioners were afforded opportunity to prove the charges on merit. But even thereafter the charges could not be proved before the tribunal. Therefore by means of the