PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) THE above writ petition is directed against the Labour Court Award passed in Adjudication Case No. 294/1993 against the present petitioner who is employer.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was in service as Bus Driver with the petitioner. He was in charge of Vehicle No. UHN 854. On April 2, 1985, the said vehicle was plying on Meerut -Shikohabad route. Shri Hukum Singh was conductor at that time. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the Driver, respondent No. 1 herein and the conductor, Shri Hukum Singh on the allegations that at about 16.30 p.m. the bus was not stopped immediately when signal to stop the bus was given by a checking party consisting of Shri Y.P. Chauhan, Traffic Superintendent, Shri Kshetrapal Singh, Traffic Inspector and Shri Rishal Singh, Traffic Inspector. THE bus stopped at a considerable distance in order to enable the conductor, Hukum Singh to correct the entires in his way bill. On checking of the record of the bus conductor, serious irregularities were detected. THE conductor refused to sign below the checking remarks on the way bill and instead got ready to fight. THE charge against the driver, respondent No. 1 herein is that he instigated the passengers and after getting down from the steering wheel, commanded the checking party to cancel the remarks on the way bill. He misbehaved with the checking party and collected a mob with antisocial elements. He beat up the members of the checking party during which the way bill got torn. A departmental inquiry after serving a charge sheet was conducted against the driver wherein he was found guilty. His services were terminated by the order dated January 7, 1991. An industrial dispute was raised by the driver which was referred by the State Government under Section 4-K for adjudication to the Labour Court. The State Government referred the dispute to determine the legality and validity of the termination order dated January 7, 1991 and if it is bad, the relief which can be granted to the driver. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the termination order terminating services of the driver is bad and illegal and has ordered his reinstatement with all full back-wages and continuity in service. Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has decided the matter as if it was hearing an appeal against the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry. He submits that the witnesses were produced even before the Labour Court and Labour Court was not justified in holding that the termination order is bad, taking a different view of the matter by re-appreciating the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the case of misconduct and as such the award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.
(3.) CONTROVERTING the above submissions, Shri Vinod Sinha, the learned counsel for the Driver submits that the filing of the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that the petitioner has, compromised the dispute with the conductor namely Hukum Singh. The main charge was against the conductor who had committed irregularity by permitting the passengers to travel without tickets. He has been reinstated but without back-wages as has been noticed in the order of the Labour Court also. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties.;