High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 12348 of 1998  RD-AH 919 (27 September 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12348 of 1998
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut Vs. State of
U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 7.11.1996, annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the order of removal dated 14.7.1987 of the respondent no.3 was set aside mainly on the ground that the charges do not commensurate the punishment, and directed the reinstatement with continuity in service along with back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the labour Court-respondent no.2 has not considered the additional issue no.3 and disposed off the same in a very cursory manner.
4. I have looked into the record of the case and find that no doubt while disposing off the additional issue no.3, the respondent no.2 has not dealt with it elaborately, and has discussed the entire relevant material-facts in respect with the said issue while dealing with the issue no.1 at length with a view to prevent repetition, this does not amount to any illegality or perversity, I find that the respondent no.2 after through examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings and material on record and on consideration of the relevant evidence it has arrived at a well reasoned award dated 7.11.1996 annexure-1 to the writ petition on the basis of 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 fact of the record. More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondent no.2 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. However, it would serve the ends of justice, if the impugned award dated 7.11.1996 annexure-1 to the writ petition is modified only to the extent of reducing the quantum of back wages to 50% instead of full back wages as awarded on the basis of the principles laid down in the case of "Hindustan Motor Limited Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC page 41". The petitioner shall pay the regular salary of the workman henceforth.
In view of the above said facts and circumstance of the case and observations made herein above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
September 27, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.