High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer Labour Court & Another - WRIT - C No. 28254 of 2000  RD-AH 7214 (8 December 2005)
Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Corporation, Azamgarh against the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.11.1999 by which the Labour Court has granted a relief of reinstatement and continuity of service to the workman.
The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the respondent No.2 was working as Conductor and he joined duty on 1.5.1989. The bus was checked by the Station Superintendent and it was found that 20 persons were found without ticket. On the basis of the report an enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 1.12.1989. An enquiry was concluded under the provisions of Service Regulation 1981 and after giving adequate opportunity the Enquiry Officer has found that the respondent No.2 is guilty. After submission of the enquiry report a show cause notice was given to the respondent No.2 and an order was passed by the competent authority removing the respondent No.2 from service. The respondent No.2 filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal, the workman respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. A written statement was filed stating therein that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and the reporting officer was prejudice.
The petitioner has filed a written statement denying the allegations made and has stated that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law according to the departmental rules and there is no illegality committed by the enquiry officer but the respondent No.1 the Labour Court without considering the document on record has passed an award in his favour reinstating the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
This Court vide its order dated 5.7.2000 was pleased to pass an order staying the operation of the impugned order with the condition that the petitioner will pay the respondent No.2 month to month amount equivalent to wages last drawn by the workman.
During the pendency of the writ petition the respondent No.2 workman has died. An application for substitution on behalf of the petitioner has been filed though the respondent No.2 has died on 2.10.2002 an application for dismissal of the writ petition has also been filed on 19.5.2004 stating therein that the writ petition be dismissed as no application for substitution has been filed.
I have taken into consideration the application for substitution and the application for dismissal of the writ petition. The application for the substitution has been allowed but as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent No.2 workman has already died, there will be no fruitful purpose for deciding the case on merits.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
However, this order of dismissal of the writ petition will not entitle the heirs of the respondent No.2 to receive any monetary benefits which have already been paid to the respondent No.2 but if some amount in view of the award has been deposited the same be permitted to withdraw by the heirs of the respondent No.2.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.