Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


UPSRTC, Varanasi v. Presiding Officer and others - WRIT - B No. 49182 of 2000 [2004] RD-AH 529 (12 August 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.51

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49182 of 2000

U.P.S.R.T.C, Varanasi  Vs.  Presiding Officer and others,Varanasi.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard Sri T.B.Pandey, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. A.N.Rai and Sri R.P.Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

Counter and rejoinders affidavits have been exchanged, but the copy of counter and rejoinder affidavits are not on record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has passed the office copy of the counter and rejoinder affidavits today in the court, which are taken on record.

The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent no.2 was working as a driver in Gramin Depot, Varanasi, District Varanasi.  The main charge was that the petitioner did not stop the bus when the signal was given by the checking squad of the Depot, and on this ground the services of the respondent no.2 were terminated.  The witness were produced on behalf of the petitioner-employer before the Labour Court against the respondent no.2, who did not support the case of the employer and the charges were not proved before the Labour Court. The case of the respondent no.2 is that he had not committed any misconduct and  the charges framed against him were not proved and his services were terminated arbitrarily and illegally on 4.11.1996.

I have looked into the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.  After thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and material on record and the relevant evidence the respondent no. 1 has arrived at a well-reasoned award dated 21.9.1999 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) on the basis of   the findings of fact.  The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award suffers from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record.  More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondents on the basis of which the impugned award has been passed being based on relevant material on record are not open to challenge before this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I do not find any illegality having been committed in passing the impugned award dated 21.9.1999  (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), by respondent no.1      

In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed.  The stay order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.

Dated: 12.8.2004



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.