JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 170 of 2007 dated 18th March, 2010, published on 3rd March, 2011.

2. Ganga Rai, respondent No. 2 to this petition, was employed as a driver with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1979. Ganga Rai shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the workman'. The two petitioners here, who are substantially one and the same, that is to say, the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by their General Manager for the Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, shall hereinafter be called 'the employers'.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the workman was placed under suspension pending inquiry by the employers on 9.12.1987. Two charge-sheets, carrying distinct charges, were issued to the workman by the employers, one dated 20.11.1987 and the other dated 1.1.1988. He was required to file his reply to the charge-sheets within the time specified. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges and submit a report. It is common ground between parties that the workman participated in the ensuing inquiry. The workman was exonerated of the charges carried in the charge-sheet dated 20.11.1987. However, of the three charges carried in the charge-sheet dated 1.1.1988, the workman was exonerated in regard to Charge No. 1, but held guilty on Charges Nos. 2 and 3.

4. The Assistant Regional Manager of the employers issued a show-cause notice to the workman on 4.12.1989, to which the workman submitted his reply. The Assistant Regional Manager vide his order dated 31.3.1990 ordered the workman's removal from service and forfeiture of the balance of all emoluments for the period of suspension. A departmental appeal was preferred from the said order, which was rejected by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 26.10.1990. This order was communicated to the workman on 22.1.1991.

5. The workman invoked the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for the short, 'the Act of 1947') claiming the termination of his services by the employers to be unlawful. The following reference was made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide order dated 8.4.1991 (translated into English from Hindi):

Whether termination of services of the workman, Sri Ganga Rai (Driver) son of Sri Suryabali Rai, by the employers on 31.3.1990 is just and/or lawful? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and with what other benefits?

6. On the aforesaid reference, Adjudication Case No. 209 of 1991 was registered on the file of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. Later on, by a Government Order dated 31.7.2007, the industrial dispute was transferred to the Labour Court, Lucknow. After registration of the case before the Labour Court at Lucknow, notice was issued to both parties, directing them to appear. The workman appeared and put in his written statement, where after detailing the course of proceedings, already extracted hereinabove, the workman pleaded that termination of his services was unlawful and unjust. It was also the workman's case that the Inquiry Officer was not appointed by the competent officer, empowered in this behalf. The workman was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or produce evidence in his defence. The entire disciplinary proceedings were held in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded on behalf of the workman that he had not done any such act, on account of which the employers would have sustained injury. It was pleaded that he was falsely implicated by and at the behest of some persons, harbouring personal ill-will and malice against him, who conspired to implicate him.

7. The employers in their written statement pleaded that the workman was suspended and charge-sheeted on various charges, which include refusing to operate the Delux Bus on its route on 23.11.1987, misbehavi