Reserved on 13.08.2021

Delivered on 18.08.2021

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40387 of 2018

Petitioner :- Chhedi Lal

Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.

Petitioner while working on the post of Driver with U.P. State Road

Transport Corporation at Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as “UPSRTC”)

was allegedly involved for theft and misappropriation of Diesel. A charge

sheet was issued against petitioner wherein the petitioner was charged for

theft and misappropriation of Diesel. The reply of petitioner was found

unsatisfactory and, therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. A show

cause notice was issued to petitioner and he submitted reply to the same.

Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 06.09.1994 wherein out of four

charges only two (Charge No. 2 and 3) were found proved. The disciplinary

authority thereafter considered the reply of petitioner, approved the inquiry

report and awarded punishment for removal from service vide order dated

28.01.1995. Petitioner, thereafter, remained silent for about 7 years and he

approached the Government for reference in 2002. The State Government

vide order dated 17.04.2002 made following reference under Section 4-K of

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to Labour Court:

“क्या सेवायोजक पक्ष द्वारा अपने श्रमिक छेदीलाल पुत्र श्री राजी की

सेवायें मिदनांक 28.1.95 से साप्त मिकया जाना अनुचित एवं अवैधामिनक है, यमिद

हाँ तो संबंचिधत श्रमिक क्या मिहतलाभ पाने का अचिधकारी है एवं अन्य मिकस

मिववरण समिहत?”

2.

The Labour Court passed award dated 12.04.2017 whereby it has

interfered with the findings of Inquiry Officer as well as order of

disciplinary authority and found that no charge was proved against

petitioner. However, considering that there was a delay of about 7 years in

2

approaching for reference as also that petitioner has already attained age of

superannuation, the following award was passed:

“अतः सेवायोजक पक्ष को आदेश मिदया जाता है मिक क-कार छेदी लाल

को एक ाह के नोमि.स के स्थान पर एक ाह के वेतन की धनराशिश और सेवा

सामिप्त करने के आदेश मिदनांक 28.01.95 से उसकी सेवामिनवृत्ति6 की आयु तक

की अवचिध के प्रत्येक पूण- वर्ष- के त्तिलये 15 मिदन के औसत वेतन की धनराशिश का

भुगतान अवार्ड- प्रकाशन की चितशिथ के एक ाह के अन्दर करना सुमिनचि=त करें।”

3.

Petitioner being aggrieved by aforesaid award dated 12.04.2017 has

approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that once the Labour

Court has found that petitioner was not guilty of any charge, therefore, he

should be granted all the benefits including pensionary benefits and,

therefore, the award is liable to be modified to this extent.

5.

The aforesaid submission was opposed by learned counsel appearing

for UPSRTC. He contended that petitioner approached for reference after

about 7 years of his dismissal and, therefore, despite the fact that no charge

was found proved, the entire benefit cannot be granted automatically and

there are various judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court where, in

similar circumstances, order for one time compensation or the order, such as

impugned in present writ petition, were affirmed. Therefore, there is no

merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available

on record.

7.

In Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors,

2015(15) SCC 1 Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of delay in

approaching for adjudication and the legal position has been summarised in

para 42 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under:

3

“42. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we summarise the legal

position as under:

42.1

An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate

Government for adjudica