- (1.) The petitioner U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Kanpur Region, Kanpur has challenged the award of Labour court dated 26.7.99 whereby it has set aside the punishment order awarded to the respondent no.1 and direction has been issued for reinstatement with full back wages.
(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The petitioner is a Corporation, owned and controlled by State Government. Respondent no.1 was initially appointed as a Driver on 25.10.1976. It appears that some dispute was raised by the Workers Union in respect of payment of time scale to the employees and the said dispute was registered Under Section 6 F of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short U.P.Act) as Case No.2 of 1994 before the Labour court (3) Kanpur. During the pendency of the said dispute a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 18.1.1989 wherein it was alleged that on 22.11.1988 when petitioner was on duty from Kanpur -Metha -Shivali Road during inspection it was found that in his place his son was running the bus. One namely B.N.Govil was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. However, for undisclosed reasons the inquiry did not proceed and after a lapse of eight years on 18.6.1997 the Regional Manager issued an order to restart the inquiry. In the said inquiry it stated that the petitioner's request for summoning of the officers/employees who had conducted the alleged inspection was not accepted. The Inquiry Officer only on the basis of the oral statement of the conductor held the petitioner guilty of the charge and consequently the petitioner was terminated from service.
(3.) The State Government vide order dated 8.10.1998 transferred the proceedings under section 6 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which was pending earlier before the Labour court/respondent no.2. It is stated that the termination order was passed without seeking permission from Labour court in terms of Section 6 E (2) of the U.P.Act. After giving opportunity to the parties the Labour court held that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and it directed his reinstatement with full back wages.;