- (1.) Heard Mr. Ghaus Beg, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd of May, 1993, passed by the Divisional General Manager (Western Division), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), Meerut, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, the order dated 4th of June, 1994, passed by the Chief Head Manager (Technical), Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner's representation against the order of punishment has been rejected as also the award dated 10th of December, 2002, passed by the Industrial Tribunal (2), State of U.P. Lucknow. The charge against the petitioner is that while the petitioner was deputed to attend the proceeding of a case No. PWUA 187/91 before the Labour Court, Meerut, he failed to attend the proceeding on several dates, on account of which an ex-parte award allowing the compensation of Rs. 40,620/- and damages of Rs. 2,03,100/- total Rs. 2,43,720/- was passed against the Corporation. Thus, the Corporation was put to loss, on account of petitioner's negligence in duty. The petitioner's action was found misconduct. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet for the aforesaid charges. He submitted the reply of the charge-sheet in the manner that it was the duty of the Counsel appointed on behalf of the Corporation to attend the proceeding of the Labour Court, who was engaged therefor. It is further stated that he always persuaded the case to the Counsel of the Corporation and intimated him the date fixed by the Labour Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in doing 'Pairvi' of the case.
(2.) However, upon perusal of the order of punishment, I find that after inquiry it has been established that no written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation, which can be prepared by the Counsel with the assistance of the 'Pairokar' of the Department. In the award it has been observed that on 10th of October, 1991, 15th of October, 1991, 26th of October, 1991, 30th of October, 1991 and 15th of November, 1991 nobody appeared before the Prescribed Authority on behalf of the Corporation. The petitioner has made an effort to explain his absence that suddenly he fell down due to attack of fits on 10th of October, 1991 in the Court premises itself, therefore, he could not attend the proceeding of the Court. Thus, it is stated by the petitioner that his absence was not willful, but it was inevitable. However, he has failed to explain the laches for not attending the Court on the subsequent dates mentioned, as above. It was stated by him that he received the knowledge of ex-parte order on 13th of January, 1992, whereas it was found proved that he noted the order passed on 15.11.1991 on 20.12.1991, but moved the application for restoration on 28.1.1992 to set aside the ex-parte award, however, the same was dismissed also.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, 2012 132 FLR 1023, (2) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhun and others, 2009 123 FLR 601, (3) State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena and others, 1998 79 FLR 140.;