Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21990 of 2022

Petitioner :- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport

Respondent :- Sri. Pramod Kumar And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- U.S. Singh Visen,Jamal Ahmad Khan

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for

the respondent workman.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the employer

against the award of the Labour Court, Agra dated

16.01.2022 in Adjudication Case No. 96 of 2018. By that

award, the Labour Court has granted relief of

reinstatement with 70% backwages to the respondent

workman, who was a driver of the petitioner corporation.

3. Earlier, vide reference order dated 29.11.2018, the

following reference was made to the Labour Court:

"Kya sevayojkon dwara shramik Shri Pramod Kumar putra Shri

Ramjilal (chalak) ki sevayein dinank 04.04.2016 se samapt kiya

jana uchit va vaidhanik hai ? Yadi nahi to ukt sambandhit shramik

apne sevayojak se kya labh/hitlabh paane ka adhikari hai aur anya

kis vivran sahit"

4. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner had contended,

the respondent in his capacity of driver of the corporation

bus has indulged in over speeding and thus prevented the

bus to be checked for valid passengers. However, it is a

fact, the bus was stopped at about 3 kms from the place

where the petitioner indicated the respondent workman to

first stop the bus.

5. Besides the above fact, the petitioner corporation could

not prove before the Labour Court any fact with respect to

unauthorised passenger having boarded the bus before it

was checked. Neither there appears any material

discussion in the award on that aspect nor any pleading

has been made in the writ petition as may warrant any

deeper scrutiny on the issue whether the conductor of the

bus was proceeded against. Only at the last page of the

award, the discussion appears that no enquiry was made

from the conductor of the bus Santosh Kumar and that

there is no mention of the same in the inspection report

relied against the petitioner.

6. In face of such finding, the only allegation that may

have been made out against the petitioner would pertain

to over speeding and failure to stop the bus immediately

upon being indicated to do so by the inspection team.

7. Leaving aside the explanation furnished by the

respondent, the charge itself even if assumed to be

proved could not travel beyond a minor misconduct.

Unless there was any accompanying charge levelled or

proven pertaining to unauthorised passenger etc, no

major punishment may have been warranted.

8. In such facts, the Labour Court has not erred in

reaching a conclusion that the punishment awarded was

disproportionate to the charge levelled and proven.

Besides the Labour Court has found that the domestic

enquiry was vitiated.

9. In view of the above, the award made by the Labour

Court, granting relief of reinstatement is wholly just and

proper. The same does not merit interference by this

Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Insofar as the relief of backwages is concerned, it

does appear, in the first place, the respondent workman

had been wrongly dealt with. Therefore, he would be

entitled to backwages. At the same time, in absence of

finding on lack of gainful employment, the relief to be

granted in that respect had to be limited. The award of

70% backwages appears on a higher side. At the

suggestion of the Court, Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent workman states,

the respondent workman would contend with an award of

backwages up to the extent of 50%.

11. In view of the above, present writ petition is partly

allowed. The award of reinstatement is maintained.

However, the amount of backwages is modified. It is

provided, the respondent workman shall