High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru' Regional Manager v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others - WRIT - C No. - 54188 of 2003  RD-AH 16465 (8 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Judgment reserved on 09.08.2007)
(Judgment delivered on 08.10.2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54188 of 2003
U.P State Road Transport Corportation through its Regional Manager, P.B. Road, Kanpur Nagar Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 02.05.2003 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P. Kanpur, in adjudication case No.207 of 1998. The matter, which was referred to the Labour Court was, as to whether the action of the employer terminating the services of its employee respondent No.1 w.e.f. 30.06.1997 was proper or not. The reference was thereafter modified and it was directed that the Labour Court should also decide as to whether order of the Appellate Authority dated 02.02.1998 dismissing the appeal of the employee against termination order dated 30.06.1997 was proper or not.
The allegation against respondent No.1, who was a driver was that on 17.01.1994 at Kidwai Nagar Depot of the petitioner, he used abusive language against Station In-charge of the said depot, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari. Complaint was made by Sri Ashutosh Tiwari and some other officers including Sri R.K. Srivastava, the then Senior Centre In-charge. The charge-sheet was given to the respondent No.1 on 27.01.1994 and services were terminated after domestic enquiry. Before the Labour Court, respondent No.1 contended that domestic enquiry was not fair. Sri Ashutosh Tiwari and Sri R.K. Srivastava were examined as witness before the Labour Court by the petitioner employer. Both the officers, i.e. Sri Asutosh Tiwari and Sri R.K. Srivastava, before the Labour Court categorically stated that neither respondent No.1 mis-behaved with them nor abused them in any manner. It was also alleged on behalf of the employer that on the fateful day 17.01.1994, respondent No.1 was in a drunk state. The case of the respondent No.1 was that on 17.01.1994, the bus which he used to drive was given to another driver and he was demanding that some other bus for driving must be given to him. On the said date, however no other bus was available, hence officers concerned asked him to go back and assured that he would be marked present on the said date. The officers of petitioner before the Labour Court admitted that on the said date, respondent No.1 was marked present. The aforesaid witnesses of employer, i.e. Sri Srivastava and Sri Tiwari did not substantiate the allegation that respondent No.1 was drunk on 17.01.1994 before the Labour Court and it was stated by them that no medical examination of the respondent No.1 was got conducted. In view of clear cut admission of Sri Tiwari and Sri Srivastava, who were responsible officers and also complainants in the complaint dated 17.01.1994, Labour Court held that termination order was bad. Accordingly, Labour Court through impugned award directed reinstatement with full back wages. As two of main complainants, i.e. Sri Asuthosh Tiwari and Sri R.K. Srivastava, who were responsible officers, admitted before the Labour Court that no undue incident had taken place on 17.01.1994, hence no fault can be found with the impugned award directing reinstatement. However, as far as award of full back wages is concerned, there is no finding in the impugned award that respondent No.1 was not meanwhile engaged for gain anywhere. Normally, drivers may get private job easily.
Accordingly, impugned award is affirmed in respect of reinstatement, however it is modified in respect of back wages and it is directed that from the date of termination till the date of the award of respondent No.1 shall be paid 65% back wages.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.