Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as conductor on 2.6.1972 in U.P. S.R.T.C. purely on temporary basis. On two occasions, he was found carrying passengers without ticket in the corporation bus, hence his services were terminated by order dated 13.7.1973 without any reflection of this misconduct in the termination order as his services were wholly temporary. Appeal filed by the petitioner against termination of his services was also rejected by the Regional Manager vide order dated 20.9.1974. It appears that thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Conciliation Officer on 30.12.1989 i.e. after delay of about 15 years. The Regional Conciliation Officer condoned the delay in initiation of conciliation proceedings and referred the matter of dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 62 of 1993 before Labour Court, Meerut. On receipt of the summons, the parties filed their respective written statements, on the basis of which the Labour Court framed the following issues : JUDGEMENT_2377_UPLBEC3_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_2377_UPLBEC3_2011Image2.jpg For the sake of convenience, the Labour Court decided issue Nos. 1,2 and 3 together and recorded a finding of fact that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was found carrying passengers without tickets and when the inspecting party boarded the bus, he started making tickets for the passengers from whom he had already received the fare. The Court also found that provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 42, were not attracted as his services were terminated for the misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets on two occasions which was proved before the Labour Court and also because the workman failed to prove that his services were termination in violation of the aforesaid provisions.
(3.) AS regards issue No. 4 is concerned, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner had been found carrying passengers without ticket on two occasions on 3.7.1973 and 10.7.1973 which is a serious misconduct. The Court noted the fact that in the circumstances, enquiry was not held by the employer as the workman was a temporary employee and not a permanent one, therefore, there was no necessity for the employer to have held a domestic enquiry into the misconduct of the petitioner, hence his services were terminated after giving him one month's notice. Thus, issue No. 4 was decided by the Labour Court holding that in the aforesaid circumstances, action of the employer cannot be said to be against the provisions of law or faulted with and that merely because domestic enquiry was not held, action of the employer in terminating services of the workman was not vitiated. In respect of issue No. 5, the Labour Court held that services of the workman were terminated after payment of notice pay, hence termination was not vitiated.;