Back
J. J. MUNIR
U. P. S. R. T. C. – Appellant
Versus
Labour Court – Respondent
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 ensui
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
Misconducts - Award Modified - Workman was earning by plying rickshaw since his dismissal i.e. from 1990, appropriate relief may be moulded in favour of workman by tilting balance -Workman be paid re....
Labour Courts must refrain from re-evaluating evidence after confirming the fairness of a disciplinary inquiry; interference is only permissible when findings are perverse or lack evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has a duty to grant the employer the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is foun....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
