Advocates:
['V K SINGH', '', 'U S SINGH VISEN', 'C S C', '', 'R C MAURYA', 'BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH']

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58036 of 2014

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M.

Respondent :- Surendra Pal Singh And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,U.S. Singh Visen

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Kumar Singh,R.C. Maurya

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

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

Brajesh Kumar Singh, 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 22.01.2014 in Adjudication Case No.253

of 2003. By that award, the Labour Court has granted relief of

reinstatement with 25% back wages to the respondent-workman. Earlier

the following reference had been made to the Labour Court.

"Kya sewayojakon dwara Sri Surendra Pal Singh putra Sri Bodhpal Singh (chalak), ki sewaye dinank

13.06.2002 se samapt kia jaana ucchit/tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai, yadi nahin toh sambhandhit shramik

kya laabh/relief paane ka adhikari hai tatha anya kis vivaran sahit ?"

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the

record, it transpires that the respondent-workman was appointed on the

post of driver in the year 1989. He was removed from service vide order

dated 13.06.2002, on allegation of unauthorised leave from June 2001

onwards.

4. Before the Labour Court, the disciplinary proceedings were questioned

by the respondent-workman. Upon appraisal of evidence, the Labour

Court found lack of opportunity given to the respondent-workman to

defend himself in those proceedings. For that and other grounds, the

domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner was found vitiated. No

material/evidence has been shown and no reasoning has been relied as

may allow the court to take a different view with respect to that finding.

5. As to the evidence led before the Labour Court to prove the charge, it

is seen, the solitary witness produced by the management could not

establish the gravamen of charge levelled against the respondent-

workman.

6. On the other hand, the workman led sufficient evidence to establish

that he remained absent beyond the month of July 2001, mainly on

account of injuries suffered by him in a road accident for which he

remained under treatment for long. As to the months of June and July

2001, the Labour Court found, respondent-workman remained absent for

about 26 days in that period of two months. No other material or

evidence is shown to exist as may lead the Court to a conclusion that

there was no explanation offered by the respondent for his forced

absence.

7. As to the aspect of intimation given to the petitioner, no clear cut

finding has emerged. In any case, upon the present writ petition being

filed, the award of reinstatement was maintained. Only payment of back

wages was stayed. The respondent-workman is still working at the

petitioner-establishment for the last eight years. He would be on the

verge of requirement. Therefore, in the first place, the award of

reinstatement does not merit any interference in the facts and

circumstances noted above and in the face of finding recorded by the

Labour Court. As to award of back wages, it is seen that a bare minimum

amount has been awarded by means of back wages, being 25%. That

also does not warrant any interference by this Court, specially since the

respondent has not filed any writ petition.

8. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.7.2022

S.Chaurasia

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM

CHAURASIA

Date: 2022.07.22 17:54:09 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad