High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Thru' R.M. v. Lalla Babu Tiwari & Others - WRIT - C No. 33 of 2003  RD-AH 12414 (19 July 2007)
Judgment reserved on 11.07.2007)
(Judgment delivered on 19.7.2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33 of 2003
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through Regional Manager, Etawah Vs. Lalla Babu Tewari and others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against the award dated 03.08.2001 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U.P. Kanpur in adjudication case NO.91 of 2000. The matter, which was referred through the order of the Government of U.P. dated 14.11.2000 (C.P. 44/99) was to the effect that the as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer terminating the services to its employee/conductor respondent No.1, w.e.f. 16.01.1997 and the punishment given by the appellate order dated 09.07.1998 was proper or not.
The charge against the workman was that he was carrying several passengers without ticket.
Through Annexure-1 order dated 09.07.1998, termination order had not been set aside, however the workman was directed to be given fresh appointment on the initial pay scale without back wages or any benefit of past service. Appellate Court clearly held that several punishments had been awarded to the workman in 1976, 1979, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Appellate Court further held that as against the charge of carrying 75 passengers, only the charge of carrying 57 passengers without ticket was found proved. Appellate Court further found that way bill was snatched by the Conductor from checking party and he misbehaved with checking party.
The Court puts on record its strong disapproval about the action of giving fresh appointment by the Chairman, State Road Transport Corporation. After recording extremely adverse findings against the workman, there was absolutely no question of giving fresh appointment. Chairman behaved in an utterly negligent manner. Learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. has not been able to justify the said order. However, as the order dated 09.07.1998 passed by Chairman, U.P.S.R.T.C. is not under challenge, hence it can not be set aside.
Workman did not feel satisfied by the fresh appointment and raised the Industrial Dispute.
Labour Court found that in the domestic inquiry, full opportunity of hearing was not given to the workman and he was not provided opportunity of hearing in the sense that ticket-less passengers were not examined. Labour Court further held that earlier no punishment had been awarded to the workman. In the order of the Appellate Court, it was specifically mentioned that workman was given punishment seven times. Burden to disprove the same was upon the workman. He did not discharge the same. Preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was not framed. However, it is not necessary to examine the question as to whether charge was proved or not? Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2349 "State of Punjab v. Krishan Niwas". In the said authority, it has been held that if a workman accepts the order of the Appellate Court and joins the post on the condition that wages for the earlier period will not be payable to him, then he cannot claim past benefits subsequently. In the instant case also the workman accepted the fresh appointment in pursuance of order of appellate authority dated 09.07.1998, hence he could not subsequently challenge his termination orders.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.