- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 26.2.2002, published on the Notice Board on 29.6.2002, passed by the Labour Court (I) U. P., Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 32/83.
(2.) DHARAMVEER Singh-respondent No. 1 was working as driver in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. He was assigned the duty to drive bus No. U.S.C. 5323 on 19.8.1977. He was charged with the offence that he did not stop bus on signal given by the checking staff and the bus was stopped at Purkazi stoppage. He was further charged that he again started the bus and ran away in collusion with the conductor as a result whereof the bus could not be checked by the checking staff. He was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 27.10.1977, containing the following charges, was issued : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice together with the enquiry report holding the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. The petitioner was removed from service vide impugned order dated 31.1.1978 and appeal preferred by him against the order of removal was also rejected vide order dated 15.1.1979. Thereafter, the workman concerned moved a representation against the orders of removal dated 31.1.1978 and rejection of appeal dated 15.1.1979 which was also rejected by the General Manager (Personnel). U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 22.9.1981. Dharamveer Singh-respondent No. 1, the concerned workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court (1) Meerut for adjudication where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 32/83. After exchanue of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following seven additional issues : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
(3.) ADDITIONAL issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were decided by the Labour Court together holding that no evidence, whatsoever, has been led on behalf of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation from which it can be proved that the driver had been given signal to stop the bus and that if the car of the checking squad was running at the speed of 100 kms. per hour, it was not impossible for them to stop the bus as a governor was fitted in the bus to ensure that the bus is not oversped. The labour court further found that neither copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman nor he was afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the employers in the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court found that in fact the bus had been taken out from the workshop at 19.40 hours on the date of incident for plying as such it is not possible that the bus could have been on road at 19.10 hours and as such, no charges levelled against the respondent-workman could have been framed. The Labour Court decided additional issue No. 1 against the employers holding that the enquiry against the workman was neither fair and proper nor employers were able to prove the charges before it. In regard to additional issue No. 2 it was held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Additional issue No. 3 was decided holding that the workman was harassed for his trade union activities as he was a candidate for the post of President in the workers' union. The additional Issue No. 6 was decided holding that the driver was not guilty of any misconduct.;