JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner / U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Mr. Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.1

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 was appointed as Conductor in 1989 in the petitioner-corporation. On 13.3.2010 respondent no.1 was carrying a bus no.U.P.81AA-9326. An inspection was conducted by the officer of the petitioner-corporation and it was found that 8 passengers out of 22 passengers were traveling without tickets from Jaipur to Ajamer, accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 30.3.2010 was issued to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 filed his reply denying the charges leveled against him stating that his bus was intercepted by checking the staff when the bus was at toll plaza on Soron, Ajmer Road and respondent no.1 was in process of preparing the tickets but the inspector has taken possession of the ATM Machine from the hand of respondent no.1 and issued tickets to the passengers after collecting fair. Petitioner-corporation did not consider the reply submitted by respondent no.1. Departmental enquiry was conducted and show cause notice dated 14.12.2010 along with enquiry report was served upon respondent no.1 requiring him to show cause as to why he be not removed from service. Respondent no.1 submitted his reply dated 7.1.2011. Disciplinary authority vide order dated 13.12.2012 dismissed the respondent no.1 from service. Respondent no.1 filed a representation dated 11.2.2013, which was rejected vide order dated 29.4.2013. Revision filed by respondent no.1 has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.4.2014. Respondent no.1 initiated industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before labour Court and registered as Adjudication Case No.4 of 2015. In the aforementioned case, written statement was filed by the petitioner-corporation as well as respondent no.1. Both parties adduced evidence before the labour Court in support of their cases. Labour Court proceeded to decide the preliminary issue regarding fairness of departmental enquiry which was decided vide order dated 23.9.2020 holding that departmental enquiry was unfair as the same was done in violation of principle of natural justice. Labour Court under the impugned award dated 25.1.2020 as published on 25.3.2021 set aside the order of dismissal of respondent no.1 and directed for reinstatement of respondent no.1 with continuity of service along with 80 % of the back wages from the date of termination i.e. 13.12.2012 and other service benefits, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.1.2020 passed by respondent no.2 published on 25.3.2021 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).

ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to enforce the impugned award dated 25.1.2020 published on 25.3.2021 in Adjudication Case No.4 of 2015 by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition)."

3. This Court entertained the matter vide order dated 25.10.2021 directing that subject to the respondent-workman being reinstated in service forthwith the award of back wages shall remain stayed.

4. In compliance of the order dated 25.10.2021, petitioner-corporation has reinstated the respondent no.1/workman in service and respondent no.1 is still working in the petitioner-corporation. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law as the pleading of the parties and evidence on record has not been considered in proper manner. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the labour Court in respect to the disciplinary enquiry is wholly perverse and erroneous as disciplinary proceeding has been conducted in proper manner. He further submitted tha