D.D.Seth, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the Western Uttar Pradesh Electric Power and Supply Company, Ltd., Etawah, with its head office at Delhi and it supplies electric power to a number of towns including Etawah. The company engaged Nauratan, opposite party 4, as a line cooly on 1 May 1940. He was subsequently promoted to the post of motor-driver of the car of the resident engineer of the company. The opposite party 4 worked in that capacity till 31 July 1951 when his services were dispensed with, with effect from 1 August 1951 after the petitioner-company had allowed him a month's pay in lieu of notice, on account of alleged incompetency and inefficiency. Opposite party 4 was also paid all the amounts to his credit in his provident fund including the company's contribution and interest thereon. These amounts were accepted by opposite party 4 without any protest. Thereafter the opposite party 4 applied to regional conciliation officer, Agra, complaining about the termination of his services. Notices were issued by the conciliation officer to the petitioner-company and to the opposite party 4 and a conciliation board was formed. The conciliation proceedings failed and the conciliation board submitted its report to the Government. The Government then referred the following matter of dispute to the regional conciliation officer, Agra, for adjudication: Whether the service of Nauratan (motor-driver) has been wrongfully terminated? If so, to what relief he is entitled?
(3.) The adjudicator after hearing the parties gave his award on 31 April 1952 and directed the reinstatement of opposite party 4 to his post or, in the alternative, payment by way of compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,000 by the company and full wages together with dear-food allowances from the date of discharge to the date of the receipt of the award. Aggrieved by the award the petitioner-company filed a writ petition, No. 223 of 1952, in this Court praying for the quashing of the award dated 21 April 1952. That writ petition was contested by the opposite party Thia Court, after hearing both the parties, quashed the award dated 21 April 1952, by its order dated 25 January 1955. This Court held, inter alia, that the adjudicator failed to take into consideration some material facts, one of them being the acceptance by Nauratan of the salary for August 1951 although he was not entitled to it and in this connexion it was observed that the order of the adjudicator as it stood could not be sustained and had to be quashed leaving it open to the adjudicator to decide the question again after giving due consideration to all the points for and against the petitioner. After the decision by this Court of Writ Petition No. 223 of 1952 the State Government referred the following dispute to the regional conciliation officer for adjudication: Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably terminated the service of Nauratan, motor-driver ? If so, to what relief is he entitled ?;