Decided on December 26,2012

STATE OF U.P. Respondents


- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/award dated 7-7-1999, published on 17-7-1999, passed by the respondent No. 2 (Labour Court) in Industrial Claim Case No. 243 of 1998, Regional Manager U.P. S.R.T.C. Dehradun v. Rajendra Kumar, u/s. 4(K) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3, Rajendra Kumar was engaged as a conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, region Dehradun. On 12-5-1994, he was on duty with Bus No. 9626 on route Mussorrie - Dehradun. The checking staff headed by Checking Inspector of the Corporation checked the aforesaid Bus and found 12 persons travelling in the bus without ticket. Thereafter a charge-sheet dated 22-9-1994 was issued against the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 22.10.1994. The enquiry was transferred to Assistant Regional Manager, Hill Depott. Dehradun. When the investigation was going on, another incident of embezzlement and negligence of the respondent No. 3 came in light on 20-6-1995 when he was on duty as conductor in Bus No. U.P. 18/9620 and on checking 16 passengers were found travelling without ticket. The department on receiving the report of first incident suspended the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 26-6-1995 and issued a charge-sheet dated 29-6-1995 with regard to second incident of 20-6-1995. The respondent No. 3 sent his reply on 26-9-1995 denying the charges levelled against him and alleged that he was not feeling well on the day of incident so he sat on the bonnet of the bus and due to his sickness he could not prepare the way bill and issued the tickets to the passengers timely. An enquiry was made by Assistant Regional Manager Hill Depott. Dehradun regarding the second incident and the charges levelled against the respondent No. 3, were found correct and thereafter the department issued show cause notice dated 17-4-1996 and after receiving the reply the inquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and found the respondent No. 3 guilty of charges. The Regional Manager Dehradun examined both the inquiry reports and terminated the services of the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23-5-1998. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute and the State Government referred the dispute to Labour Court under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The respondent No. 3, filed his written statement before the Labour Court. The petitioner/employer also filed reply to the written statement of the respondent No. 3 and the same had been treated as written statement. The Presiding Officer thereafter passed the award dated 7-7-1999 holding that the termination of the respondent No. 3, not being proportionate to the seriousness of the charges and being severe, is improper and illegal, and instead direction was given to stop two increments of the respondent No. 3 and the workman was reinstated in service. The workman was also granted back-wages and difference of suspension allowances.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the petitioner, employer has file this writ petition alleging that the respondent No. 3 had committed a serious offence of not issuing tickets to the passengers and the learned Labour Court has taken a very lenient view in the matter.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.