- (1.) THE respondent-workman was working as a Fitter in the Hardoi Depot of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was chargesheeted on 10 counts. The workman denied the charges. An inquiry report was submitted holding that charge no.1 and 4 could not be proved but the remaining charges stood proved. On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 19th September, 2003. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by an order dated 25th January, 2006. The Labour Court by an award dated 12th September, 2008, which was published on 16th April, 2009, has allowed the claim of the workman and has quashed the order of termination and further, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and will full back wages. The employers, being aggrieved, by the said order has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri Lallan Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shitla Sahai, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court initially gave an award dated 1st February, 2008 dismissing the claim of the petitioner and upholding the order of termination but subsequently, without there being a review application gave a fresh award dated 12th September, 2008 setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. Consequently, the said award was wholly illegal and was liable to be aside. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the material evidence on record, has illegally held that charge nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 could not be proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that no reasons has been specified by the Labour Court while holding that the aforesaid charges could not be proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was not open to the Labour Court to review the findings given in the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer, inasmuch as the Labour Court was not adjudicating the matter as an appellate court and that the Labour Court could only sift the evidence on record only after giving a finding that the inquiry proceedings were violative of the principles of natural justice, which in the instant case was not done nor the inquiry report was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the first award given by the Labour Court dated 1st February, 2008 was not published under Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No allegations has been made that a review application was moved by the workman or that the award was published. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court did not become functus officio and had the jurisdiction to pass an award. Assuming that the Labour Court did make an award but since same was not published, it was open to the Presiding Officer to pass a fresh award. There is no allegation of malafides or extraneous consideration and, consequently, the Court is of the opinion that so long as the award was not published, it was open to the Labour Court to review its own order, which had been reserved and which had not been published.;