ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) U .P. State Road Transport Corporation, Moradabad, through its Regional Manager has filed the present writ petition, challenging an award passed by the Labour Court, U.P. Bareilly, dated 25th August, 2004, in Adjudication Case No. 100 of 1997. By the award, Labour Court has held the termination of services of worker Sri Hafiz Khan, with effect from 30th June, 1994, to be illegal and he is held entitled to be reinstated in service, alongwith 1/3rd back -wages.
(2.) THE respondent -workman, Hafiz Khan, is a permanent driver with the petitioner since 1972, and is also the Vice President of the Roadways Employees Union, Nazibabad Branch. He was terminated from service by the petitioner vide order dated 30th June, 1994. A reference under Section 4 -K of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by the appropriate govt. for adjudication by the Labour Court, on the question as to whether the termination of service of the workman concerned w.e.f. 30th June, 1994, was legal and proper, and If it is not, then to what relief is he entitled?
(3.) WRITTEN statements were filed by the worker and the employer. Parties have led their oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The order of termination dated 30th June, 1994 has been brought on record, which shows that following allegations were leveled against the workman: (i) That a vehicle was allotted to driver, Karan Singh on 26th November, 1991 for going from Moradabad to Nazibabad and while the driver was taking the vehicle out of the depot, the respondent workman stopped the vehicle and abused the driver. Upon being asked by the Senior Depot In -charge, the charge -sheeted worker stated that he would not allow any vehicle coming from Moradabad to ply, otherwise, he will lie in front of the bus, so far as to ensure that the buses do not ply. It is alleged that a lot of unrest was caused and all the drivers refused to ply the vehicle, which had come from Moradabad. The worker being Vice President of Employees Union of the Corporation, accordingly, caused financial loss, indulging in anti -management activity and refusing to comply with the official directions. (ii) On 9th December, 1991, driver Mool Chandra Sharma was to drive bus no. 978 and when the Station In -charge instructed the driver to take the vehicle, then the concerned driver misbehaved with the Depot In -charge and the respondent workman also supported erring driver Mool Chandra Sharma and were even ready to beat the Depot In -charge, and faced with such a situation, the Depot In -charge left. In such circumstance, the respondent workman was accused of supporting the erring driver, Mool Chandra Sharma in unsuccessfully trying to physical assault the Depot In -charge. By a separate letter, three additional charges were leveled, which were as under: - (iii) On 20th March, 1992, the respondent workman came to Depot in Bus No. 8179 at about 9.00 p.m.. The vehicle was inspected by one Sri Husnain Khan, Electrical Cleaner, who on inspection, found the vehicle to be in order. However, the respondent workman himself started installing pressure horn, as a result of which the bearing caught fire, causing loss of Rs. 380/ - to the employer. (iv) After the electrical cleaner was taking back his equipments, the respondent workman abused all the employee of the Depot, and threw light. (v) On 2nd April, 1992, the respondent workman alongwith other employee in respect of grievance relating to grant of leave, surrounded the Junior Foreman and used filthy language against him. However, as the Traffic Inspector and another official came on spot, as a result a possible mishapping could be avoided. ;