PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. - (1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Moradabad has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 13.11.2001, whereby the Labour Court has set aside the termination of the respondent no. 3 and reinstated him with full backwages.
(2.) THE short facts leading to the present writ petition are that the respondent no. 3 was a bus conductor under the U.P.S.R.T.C. at Meerut. On 27.11.1985 his duty was on bus no. U.H.C. 459. On the said date in the morning 60 passengers had boarded the bus. However, the respondent no. 3 was the conductor and in connivance with the driver of the bus he took the wheel and drove the bus unauthorizedly leaving behind five passengers. The bus met an accident and he was arrested by the police. The police found that he was intoxicated and was sent for medical examination. In respect of the said accident a crime case no. 224 of 1988 under sections 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicle Act registered against the respondent no. 3. On the basis of the same incident, respondent no. 3 was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings. A charge sheet was issued against him and an Inquiring Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental proceedings. The respondent no. 3 participated in the departmental proceeding and he also submitted reply to his chargesheet. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the charges. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 23.8.1989 imposed the punishment of dismissal of the respondent no. 3 from service. The respondent no. 3 aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.8.1989 filed a departmental appeal before the Divisional General Manager. His appeal also came to be rejected. Respondent no. 3 aggrieved by the aforesaid order raised industrial dispute and the matter was referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act on 15.12.1995. The reference was registered as case no. 38 of 1996 before the respondent no. 2, Labour Court, Rampur. Before the Labour Court the parties had filed their written statements. The Labour Court by its award dated 13.11.2001 set aside the dismissal order dated 23.8.1989 and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent no. 3 with full backwages. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that Corporation/Employer failed to prove the charges against the respondent no. 3 and as such it found that respondent no. 3 was entitled for reinstatement with full backwages. The petitioner/Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 13.11.2001 has filed the present writ petition. I have heard Sri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Aditya Vardhan holding brief of Sri Rahul Sripat appearing for the respondent no. 3.
(3.) SRI Sahai submitted that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated inter -alia on the ground that Labour Court has swayed away by the fact that respondent no. 3 was acquitted in criminal proceeding by the Magistrate vide order dated 21.8.1989. He further submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that charges were not proved is perverse. It is further contended that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. In any view of the matter, the respondent no. 3 was not entitled for the full backwages. Sri Sahai placed reliance on the judgment in the cases of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another Vs. Uday Narain Pandey ( 2006) 1 SCC 479 and P.V.K. Distillery Limited Vs. Mahendra Ram, (2009) 5 SCC 705. Sri Aditya Vardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court as finding of fact has been recorded by it after analyzing the evidence on record that the charges against respondent no. 3 were not proved. He urged that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court as those findings are based on the evidence on record and they do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Sri Aditya Vardhan has taken the Court to the record of the case to satisfy that the findings of Labour Court do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.;