Allahabad High Court
G.M. Anushasanik U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... vs Dinesh Kumar Srivastava And Others on 25 April, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67456 of 2012 Petitioner :- G.M. Anushasanik U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Srivastava And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Manohar,Anuj Srivastava,S.K. Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K. Mishra,Ranjeet Kumar Mishra,V.K. Agnihotri Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Agnihotri learned counsel for the respondent-workman and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed against the award of the Labour Court-II Kanpur dated 30.4.2012 in Adjudication Case No. 83 of 2009. By that award the Labour Court has set aside the dismissal order dated 24.3.2007. It reinstated the workman on the post of driver. However looking at the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, it has awarded lesser punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Also in place of award of backwages, the Labour Court has provided for one time/lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it transpires that the misconduct was found not proved, amongst others in the statement of Sri Veerendra Pratap Singh, the Traffic Inspector who was examined by the Labour Court. Perusal of that statement (annexed as annexure S.A-3 to the supplementary affidavit) reveals that the said management witness had exonerated the respondent-workman. In fact he made a statement to the effect that the petitioner who was the driver of the vehicle (that was subjected to inspection) had not offered any resistance and had also signed the documents that were presented to him at the time of inspection.
Once the management itself led evidence which did not establish the charge rather impliedly established that the respondent-workman was not at blame as the work of preparation and issuance of tickets was that of the conductor, it is difficult to appreciate the basis on which heavy penalty of dismissal from service may have been awarded to the respondent-workman. Even otherwise, perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that upon appreciation of material evidence on record, it has only reached a conclusion to award lesser punishment. No backwages have been awarded. Only lump sum compensation Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded to the respondent-workman. In the meanwhile the respondent-workman attained the age of superannuation on 30.12.2020. During that period he had remained in service without any other complaint or disciplinary proceedings.
In view of the above, no interference is warranted at the instance of the petitioner-employer. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
It may also be noted that the respondent-workman has not filed any writ petition.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Faraz