Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs The Presiding Officer & Another on 25 January, 2010
(Judgment reserved on 06.01.2010)
(Judgment delivered on 25.01.2010)
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12889 of 2001
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,M.K. Mishra
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12894 of 2001
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,K.P. Agarwal,Miss Bhushra Mariyam,V.C.Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,M.K. Mishra,S.K. Mishra,Shyam Narain,Smt. Sarita
Jhingan,Sudhanshu Narain
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12896 of 2001
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,B.B. Paul,M.K. Mishra
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12897 of 2001
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,B.B. Paul,M.K. Mishra
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5461 of 2005
Petitioner :- Anwar Khan And Others
Respondent :- Labour Court And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ekta Singh Rathor
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.C. Dixit
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20407 of 2007
Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Shri Banwari Lal & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- R.C. Maurya,D.B. Yadav,Sc
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. First four writ petitions are directed against common award dated 02.03.2000 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra in following adjudication cases, 1 all of 1993:
(i) 238 (relating to workman Anwar Khan, whose services were terminated on 01.09.1989)
(ii) 239 (relating to workman Chandrapal Singh, whose services were terminated on 21.09.1989)
(iii) 241 (relating to workman Banwari Lal S/o Sri Rameshwar Dayal, whose services were terminated on 11.09.1989)
(iv) 242 (relating to workman Umesh Chandra, whose services were terminated on 21.09.1989) The matters which were referred to the labour court were as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) terminating the services of its aforesaid workmen on the aforesaid dates was just and legal or not. The four workmen were employed as painter, motor mechanic, and cleaner. The allegation against the 2 workmen was that they had obtained the employment by producing forged certificates. The case of the workmen was that no opportunity of hearing was provided to them and no domestic enquiry was held in respect of the charge. Criminal case was also lodged, which resulted in acquittal of the workmen. It was further pleaded by the employer U.P.S.R.T.C. that the workmen were on probation period, hence for termination from service within probation period, domestic enquiry was not necessary. It was also asserted by the employer that the I.T.I. certificates on the basis of which the workmen obtained employment were found not to have been issued by the I.T.I. concerned. The authenticity of the certificates was got ascertained by the Principle of the I.T.I. concerned.
The employer U.P.S.R.T.C. clearly admitted that neither any charge sheet was given to the workmen nor any domestic enquiry was held. The labour court held that even during probation period, services could not be terminated on the ground of charge of misconduct 3 without holding domestic enquiry or serving charge sheet upon the workmen. Accordingly, through the impugned awards reinstatement without any back wages was ordered.
As far as fifth writ petition of Anwar Khan, Chandra Pal and Banwari Lal is concerned, the same has been filed against the same award, which has been challenged through the first four writ petitions. The grievance of the workmen is that they ought to have been paid back wages.
As a as sixth writ petition is concerned, it also relates to similar award in respect of Banwari Lal son of Rameshwar Dayal. The said award was given on 25.08.2006 by Presiding officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Adjudication Case No.244 of 1993. It is also in the same terms as the earlier award dated 02.03.2000 passed in the matter of other four workmen. All the five workmen were employed in May, 1989 after being selected through selection committee, which also took relevant tests of the appointees. After passing 4 of the interim orders in these writ petitions (except fifth one) all the workmen have been taken back in the service. As far as direction for reinstatement given in both the awards is concerned, I do not find any error therein. Filing of forged certificates was foundation for termination and not motive. Accordingly, grant of opportunity of hearing was essential. Employer U.P.S.R.T.C. clearly admitted that neither any charge sheet was served nor domestic enquiry was held.
However, as far as fifth writ petition by the workmen is concerned, it is also liable to be dismissed. The workmen had worked for only four or five months. Their certificates were under a cloud. They also did not prove that they were not doing anything for gain after their termination.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Order Date :- 25.1.2010 NLY 5