Point of Law: In absence of any material which may indicate that Tribunal has misdirected itself or recorded any perverse finding, Court do not find any ground for interference is made out with findings recorded in this regard.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner.

2. Sri Gopal Narayan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Workman i.e. respondent No. 2 and submits that he has filed his caveat in the Registry but the same has not been reported by the Stamp Reporter.

3. In light of the proposed order, notices to other respondent is dispensed with.

4. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Saharanpur dated 18.08.2022 thereby allowing the reference and passing of an award in favour of the employee thereby setting aside the order of termination of the respondent and giving him 25% of the back-wags from the date of termination till the date he would have superannuated and also post retiral dues which would have been admissible to the respondent had he superannuated from services considering that he would be worked during the period he remained under termination. 4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that respondent was working with the petitioner i.e. Nagarpalika Parishad Khatauli, Muzffarpur on the post of Moharrir when he was supposed to appear before the Civil Court to give evidence in Suit No. 166/167. The allegations against the respondent was that he failed to appear before the concerned court which was evident by the fact that on the said date no evidence of respondent/workman was recorded.

5. Opportunity was given to the respondent where he denied the allegations against him and stated that he had appeared before the concerned court and at the said time various other employees were also present in the court but no evidence was recorded by the Court for which he cannot be held to be responsible. Statement of one such person, namely, Ali was also recorded during the said proceedings. The respondents not being satisfied with the response of the workman terminated his services by means of order dated 16.08.1968. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had filed a civil suit being civil Suit No. 399/69.

6. It is further noticed that during pendency of the civil suit, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 came into existence and accordingly the proceedings of the civil suit were transferred to the tribunal. The Tribunal decided the said controversy and allowed the claim of the respondent and set aside his order of termination by means of order dated 18.03.1980. While allowing the claim of the workman, the Tribunal gave liberty to the Nagarpalika Parishad to proceed afresh against the respondent in accordance with law.

7. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 30.04.1979, the petitioner appointed an inquiry officer on 18.03.1980 and after due process again terminated the services of the respondent on 17.09.1980. Against the fresh order of termination dated 17.09.1980, the respondent approached U.P. Public Service Tribunal by filing claim petition being Claim Petition No. 208/11/81 which was rejected on 23.11.1983 on the ground of alternate remedy. The Tribunal considered the fact that respondent-workman has an efficacious remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act and consequently dismissed the claim of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent also approached this Court assailing the order of Tribunal and this Court by means of order dated 04.07.2003 upheld the order of Tribunal and dismissed the petition on the ground of alternate remedy.

8. After rejection of the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal and before this Court on the ground of alternate remedy, the petitioner approached Labour court where conciliation proceedings took place and finally as no settlement could be arrived at, the conciliation proceedings were closed and brought to an end on 17.11.2008 and copy of the report was also sent to the State Government which referred the matter for adjudication and a Reference No. 54/2008 was made to the Labour Court for adjudication