IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another - Appellants
Versus
Prabhu Dayal And Another - Respondents
Writ C No. 22299 of 2021
Decided on : 28-10-2021
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Central Act, 1947 - Section 11-AA - Bus Conductor - Termination Order - Doctrine of Merger - Respondent no.1 was appointed as Bus Conductor - Bus plying between Budaun to Farrukhabad in which respondent no.1 was Conductor, was checked by a team of three members while going and coming back - During checking 3 and 13 passengers were found travelling without ticket, respectively -
Finding of the Court:
It came to conclusion that domestic enquiry was not fairly conducted, it called employee/petitioner to led evidence to prove charges against respondent no.1, which it found to be insufficient as person who actually inspected bus could not appear before Labour Court since he was dead and there was no other evidence to prove that inspection of bus was conducted - Labour Court considered inquiry report and came to conclusion that domestic enquiry was faulty/irregular - Most crucial and relevant evidence of Mr. Roshan Lal, who conducted inspection of bus was neither recorded during domestic enquiry nor before Labour Court (due to his death) - There was no other evidence with petitioner-UPSRTC, which could prove inspection of bus and thus termination order of Respondent No.1 was bad on facts as well as on law - No other point was argued by petitioner - Therefore, there is no illegality in impugned Award, on law as well as on facts.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Factual Matrix of the Case
1. Respondent no.1 was appointed as Bus Conductor in Buduan Depot of the petitioner-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “UPSRTC”) in the year 1997 and was confirmed on 05.09.1998.
2. On 09.04.2008, the bus No.U.P.25-Q 9475, plying between Budaun to Farrukhabad in which respondent no. 1 was Conductor, was checked by a team of three members while going and coming back. During checking 3 and 13 passengers were found travelling without ticket, respectively.
3. A charge-sheet dated 13.05.2008 was served upon respondent no.1 on 13.05.2008. Shri Z.A. Nomani was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who after conducting enquiry submitted his report dated 23.12.2008. Relevant part of the enquiry report is mentioned hereinafter.
^^v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk izdj.k i=koyh es miyC/k leLr vfHkys[kksa dk v//k;u djus ij ik;k fd vkjksih }kjk fnukad 09&04&08 dks cnk;wW&Q:[kkckn ekxZ ij okgu la[;k ;wŒihŒ25 D;w&9475 dk mlkokW es fujh{k.k djus ij 34 ;k=h es 03 ;k=h cnk;wW ls dyku ds fcuk fVdV idM+s x;s ftudh /kujkf'k vkjksih }kjk iwoZ es olwy dh tk pqdh Fkh rFkk mlh fnol Q:[kkckn ls okil cnk;wW vkrs le; ukSxoka uked LFkku ij okgu dk fujh{k.k djus ij 47 ;k=h es 13 ;k=h fcuk fVdV idM+s x;s] ftlesa dqN ;kf=;ksa ds iSls vkjksih }kjk olwy fd;s tk pqds Fks rFkk 'ks"k ds fjiksVZdrkZ }kjk olwy dj fetkZiqj ls dyku ds fVdV fuxZr fd;s x;sA tcfd ukSxoka ls dyku dh nwjh ek= 02 fdŒehŒ FkhA bl izdkj vkus o tkus es fcuk fVdV okgu fy[kk tkuk RkFkk vkjksih }kjk lk{kkRdkj ds le; es dksbZ xokg vkfn izLrqr u djuk] rFkk vkjksih }kjk fjiksVZdrkZ }kjk mŸkj fn;k okgu dks fujh{k.k gsrq ladsr nsdj :dok;k x;k] okgu xfr'khy fLFkfr es FkhA vkjksih }kjk vius cpko esa dksbZ ,slk lcwr o xokg vkfn izLrqr ugha fd;k tks mlds Åij yxs xEHkhj vkjksiks dks de dj ldsA
vr% Jh izHkq n;ky ifjpkyd] cnk;wW fMiks ds fo:) vkjksi i= la[;k 1002 fnukad 13&05&08 es yxs vkjksi fl) ik;s x;sA^^
4. A show cause notice dated 07.01.2012, along with a copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner, who submitted his reply on 06.02.2013. The Assistant Regional Manager passed order dated 16.02.2013 wherein he found charges against the Respondent No. 1 to be proved and awarded punishment of removal from service and forfeiting arrears of salary of gratuity etc. for the period the respondent No.1 was under suspension.
5. The appeal and revision filed by the respondent no.1 was rejected by orders dated 25.06.2013 and 05.12.2014 by Regional Manager and Managing Director, UPSRTC, respectively.
6. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and a reference No.10534-37 CP 23/15 dated 07.10.2016 was referred, which was registered as Industrial Dispute No.15/2016 that:
^^D;k Jfed Jh izHkqn;ky iq= LoŒ Jh eaxwyky inuke ifjpkyd dh lsok;sa fnukad 16-2-13 ls lekIr djuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugh rks lacf/kr Jfed fdl fgrykHk@vuqrks"k@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr gSA^^
7. The Presiding Officer after considering the written statements and oral statements decided the preliminary issue by order dated 17.02.2021 and held that domestic enquiry was not conducted according to due procedure and thus cannot be considered to be valid and legal, and permitted UPSRTC to submit evidence in support of the charge. The said order was not challenged by the UPSRTC and participated in further proceedings. The relevant part of the said order is mentioned hereinafter:
^^tkap dk;Zokgh es fdlh fjiksVZdrkZ us u rks mu rFkkdfFkr fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa dks xokgh gsrq izLrqr fd;k vkSj u gh muds c;ku fy;s u gh mu fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa ds uke o irs izLrqr fd;s vkSj u gh muds }kjk ekxZi= ij viuh fjiksVZ es mu rFkkdfFkr fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa }kjk c;ku o uke irs u nsus dk dkj.k gh Li"V fd;k gSA bl izdkj ifjogu fuxe eq[;ky; y[kuÅ }kjk tkjh ifji=ks 446 ,y,,l]@95 fnukad 12-3-1996] laŒ71 ls lsŒfVŒLVks@VhŒlhŒ@fel 85 fnukad 6&2&88] es fn;s x;s fn'kk funsZ'kksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA
tkap fjiksVZ ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; Li”V ugha gks jgk gS fd tkap v
Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others
District Administrative Committee and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Workmen and others
Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 2 SCC 453
Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar
J.K. Synthetics Vs. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra and others; 2001 (2) SCC 87
Kunhayammed & Ors Vs. State of Kerala and another
Life Insurance Corporation of India and others VS. Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and others
Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Vs. P Kulothangan & Anr (2004) 1 SCC 68
Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan and Anr. 2003 (99) FLR 1175
R.Thiruvirkolam Vs. Presiding Officer and another
Secretary, Indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat And Ors
State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sureshwati
Syndicate Bank Limited Vs. Workmen
S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC 582
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kanpur Vs. Mahmood Khan and another
Union of India and others vs. Dinesh Prasad
Western India Match Company Ltd. Vs. Workmen
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Management & Others
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.