U.P State Road Transport Corporation Petitioner v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others S

P.C Verma, J.:— This writ petition is directed against the award dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, II Uttar Pradesh, Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 02/94.

2. A dispute was referred, vide notification No. 17303-6 MRIR (Sandarbh) C.P No. 29(H)/92 dated 31.12.1993 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 2/94. The reference was made in the following terms:

“Whether the termination of services of Workman Sri Pradeep Kumar S/o Sri Harish Chandra Sharma with effect from 17.6.1992 is unjustified and/or illegal, if yes, to what benefit/relief the concerned employee is entitled to and to what extent?”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 was working appointed as Conductor on 25.12.1988 on the regular post. He had to perform his duty in the Haridwar Bus Depot. On 8.10.1990, the respondent no. 3 and one Ravindra Kumar drove the Bus No. U.M.S 8350 to Lakheempur from Haridwar on the instruction of the Department. They had to drive the Bus from Haridwar to Lakhimpur and from Lakheempur to Haridwar, but they drove the Bus far from Lakheempur towards Ropyadeeh. The Officers of the department inspected the Bus at Madkar a place between Lakheempur and Ropyadeeh. In the said inspection, seventy eight passengers were found without-ticket. The worth of the said tickets was Rs. 1638/-. Against the said employees, an inquiry was conducted, but he was suspended prior to the inquiry. After the said inspection, the services of the respondent no. 3 were terminated.

4. The case of the respondent no. 3 workman is that the domestic inquiry which has been done against him is wholly void and illegal. He stated that on the instructions of the department, he and the driver took the Bus upto Ropyadeeh and he has not done any misconduct and he prayed for being reinstated.

5. The Labour Court vide award dated 22.10.1997 directed to reinstate the respondent no. 3 along with entire back wages holding that the punishment awarded to the respondent no. 3 was excessive.

6. The labour Court has recorded a finding that it was a first misconduct of the respondent no. 3 and there was nothing material available on the record to show that earlier also he had misconducted. Further the labour Court has relied upon the statement of the witness appeared on behalf of the workman, who has stated that the workman/respondent no. 3 is a poor man and his children are on the verge of starvation. After relying upon the aforesaid statement and due to first misconduct of the workman/respondent no. 3, the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent no. 3 along with entire back wages.

7. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that Labour Court has no where fell into error while passing the said award, whereby the respondent no. 3 has been reinstated in service with entire back wages, therefore, the award does not call for any interference.

8. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.