IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an employer must comply with procedural fairness in termination cases, and failure to do so can lead to enhanced back wages for the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.-Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awdesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. At the very outset, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the substitution application having been allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.9.2019, he could not incorporate the legal heirs of the respondent. He prays for and is permitted to substitute the legal heirs of the respondent during the course of the day.

3. There is consensus at the bar that the connected petition namely Writ-C No. 1004069 of 2009 which has been filed by the respondent Workman challenging the same award also has the same facts and can be decided together. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide both matters. The facts of Writ-C No. 1002969 (MS) of 2009 are being taken to decide the matters.

4. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs :

''(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 25.4.2008 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Adj. Case No. 414/2016 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery notice dated 15.5.2009 issued in pursuance of impugned award dated 25.4.2008 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Adj. Case No. 414 of 2006 contained in Annexure 13 to the writ petition.

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Opp. Parties not to proceed further in pursuance of impugned award dated 25.4.2008 passed by Opp. Party No. 2 in Adj. Case No. 414*2016 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.''

5. The main reliefs of Writ Petition No. 1004069 of 2009 are as follows :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding opposite party No. 1 to 3 to make up-to-date payment of service benefits alongwith 18 % interest till date of actual payment is made to the petitioner with effect from date of termination order dated 31.5.1990 till his reinstatement in service.

(ii) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing opposite party No. 4 to award full backwages with effect from 31.5.1990 to 12.1.2001 and rest 50 % backwages with effect from 12.1.2001 till reinstatement and other retiral monetary benefits computed in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by opposite party No. 4 to extent of refusal of full backwages with effect from 31.5.1990 to 12.1.2001 and further rest of 50 % backwages part with effect from 12.1.2001 till reinstatement in service.

6. The case set forth by the petitioners is that the respondent Workman was working in the Corporation when his services were terminated vide order dated 31.5.1990, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the petition. Being aggrieved, a reference was made on 12.1.2001 which resulted into an adjudication Case vide Case No. 414 of 2006 In re; Seva Prabandak, U.P.S.R.T.C and another v. Anwar Ali being registered before the learned Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'').

7. During the course of the proceedings, an issue was framed by the learned Tribunal which was as to whether the termination of the service of the workman on 31.5.1990 was legal and valid and if not, as to what reliefs he was entitled to.

8. The said issue was decided vide order dated 12.9.2007, a copy of which has been filed as annexure SA 1 to the supplementary-affidavit dated 8.1.2024 filed in connected Writ-C No. 1004069 of 2009.

9. While deciding the issue, the learned Tribunal came to the specific finding that the inquiry held against the workman was totally illegal and unjustified.

10. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned award dated 28.4.2008, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition per which the workman has been held entitled for being reinsta