D. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE respondent was appointed as a driver in 1966 in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, U. P. Road Transport Corporation was constituted w.e.f. 1st June, 1972 and succeeded all the assets and liabilities of the U. P. Government Roadways. Vide Government Order dated 7th June, 1972 all employees of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways were sent on deputation to the corporation but since the service rules have not been framed by the corporation, they were being governed by the service rules of the U. P. Government Roadways. Finally the employees stood absorbed in the corporation w.e.f. 28.8.1982. THE respondent workman was a driver on deputation to the corporation when he met with an accident on 9.3.1979 resulting in criminal proceedings which culminated in a sentence of one year. After serving out the said sentence, he reported for duty on 17.4.1982 but was not allowed to join, in view of his conviction. This gave rise to a reference under Section 4K which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 6 of 1985. THE corporation, in spite of being given several opportunities did not file its written statement and failing to adduce any evidence within the time prescribed, proceedings went on against it ex parte vide order dated 7.6.1985. This resulted in an ex parte award on 16.7.1985 whereby reinstatement and one-fourth back wages was granted to the workman. This award is under challenge in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the reference was bad, inasmuch as, the State of U. P. was not arrayed as a party and which in fact was the employer and the workman was only on deputation in the corporation. In support of his contention he has cited several decisions of this Court. He has further urged that the Labour Court has granted back wages without applying its mind and had recorded reasons for it. It has also been urged that the order to proceed ex parte was illegally passed. Before the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are dealt with, it would be necessary to note certain facts. When this writ petition was filed, initially a complete stay order was granted but after exchange of pleadings, the order was modified on 22nd August, 1986 whereby the corporation was directed to reinstate the workman and pay him current salary while payment of back wages was stayed by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has urged that in pursuance of order dated 22.8.1986, he was reinstated and subsequently has also retired from service but is not being paid his retiral benefits, in view of the pendency of this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to controvert the said assertion, even though it is only an oral assertion. In view of the factum of retirement of the workman, it does not appear necessary to deal with all the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner except the argument relating to grant of back wages. Though the argument with respect to master and servant relationship has been vehemently urged but in my view, in the fact of this case it does not appear necessary to decide the same.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has placed that part of the award, which relates to grant of back wages. He has urged that no reasons have been recorded and thus, that part of the award ought to be set aside. In support of his aforesaid contention he has relied upon the ratio of the Apex Court laid down in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and another, 2002 (3) AWC 2444 (SC) : (2002) 6 SCC 41. THE counsel for the respondent workman has been unable to satisfy the Court as to why back wages be awarded to the workman. THE ratio of the Apex Court in Hindustan Motors' case is fully applicable to the present case. Thus, in my opinion, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bound to be accepted. In view of the discussions hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds partly and the award of back wages to the workman is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.;