Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

U.P.STATE RD. TRANSPORT CORP. versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


U.P.State Rd. Transport Corp. v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 869 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 17117 (3 October 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

AFR

Judgment Reserved on 20.9.2006

Judgment Delivered on 3.10.2006

(Reserved)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 869 of 1988

U.P.S.R.T.C, Jhansi Versus State of U.P and others

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

The order of 20.9.2006 on the order sheet is quoted below:

"List revised. Sri S.C.Shukla learned counsel appearing for workman respondent No.3 states that he has got no instruction on behalf of respondent No.3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit filed on 17.5.2006.

Judgment reserved."

This writ petition is directed against award dated 19.5.1987 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court (II) Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 143 of 1985. Respondent No.3 Bhagwan Singh Parmar was conductor working with Petitioner Corporation. He was found carrying several passengers with insufficient tickets at the time of surprise checking on 18.10.1978. It was found that some passengers were charged for a longer distance, which they were actually to cover however they were issued tickets of shorter distance. In departmental proceedings full opportunity was given to the respondent No.3 and it was found that the charge against him was proved. However Labour Court held that the said enquiry was not proper. Accordingly evidence was adduced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held the charges not to be proved mainly on the ground that at the time of surprising checking conduct of the conductor was cooperative, and neither the passengers to whom tickets of shorter distance had been issued nor other passengers were examined. The fact that other passengers did not lodge any complaint against the conductor also greatly influenced the Labour Court. Examining the passengers from whom higher amount was charged but tickets of lesser amount were issued was not at all not necessary. In any case conductor was free to examine any passenger but he did not do so. The conduct of the conductor at the time of checking and absence of any complaint by other passengers against him were utterly irrelevant facts for deciding as to whether charge leveled against the conductor was proved or not. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Narendra Singh  AIR 2006 SC 1800 has held that standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not same as required in criminal cases Labour Court was also unnecessarily influenced by the fact that earlier no complaint was received against the said conductor.

Through interim order dated 12.1.1988 passed in this writ petition operation of the impugned award was stayed on the condition that the petitioner reinstated respondent No.3 and accordingly respondent No.3 was reinstated. In this writ petition by order dated 4.4.2006 U.P.S.R.T.C petitioner was directed to enquire as to whether any subsequent proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2 or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 17.5.2006 in which it has been stated that even after reinstatement petitioner was again found carrying several passengers without ticket on 28.6.2002 and some passengers were issued tickets for shorter distance even though they were charged for the longer distance for which they had boarded the bus. After departmental proceedings respondent No.3 was again terminated on 21.6.2004 and his representation against the said order was also dismissed on 7.12.2004. Copies of the said orders have been annexed along with supplementary affidavit.

In view of the above, I find that the impugned award is erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is quashed.

Waqar

3.10.2006


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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