- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was appointed as a Conductor in the U. P. State Road transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation')in the year 1990 and worked continuously till 29-6-1997. The brief facts of this case are that While the respondent No. 1 was on duty as Conductor of bus No. UP-78n/1401 on Kanpur-Delhi route, he was caught red handed by the checking staff and found carrying 42 passenger without tickets. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 was suspended and a charge-sheet dated 7-9-1996 was served on him. After the domestic enquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 were found to be proved, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 30-6-1997. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed on 22-8-1993. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government under section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal Respondent No. 2 and registered as Adjudication case No. 31 of 1999. The Tribunal, vide award dated 30-9-1999, after quashing the orders dated 30-6-1997 and 22-8-1993, directed reinstatement of the Respondent No. 1 with full back wages with effect from the date of the reference. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Corporation has filed this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri H. P. Misra for Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the award has been passed by the Tribunal without giving any finding of its own and thus the same is an unreasoned award which is liable to be quashed. A perusal of the impugned award shows that except for narrating the case and the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal has not given any finding of its own. In the body of the award there is no discussion of the arguments but merely statement of the case of the parties and their submissions have been recorded, and it is only the last paragraph, which is the operative portion of the order, which alone can either be said to be the opinion or discussion or the finding of the Tribunal. The said paragraph is quoted below: "i have gone through the pleading and documents of the parties and their evidence and heard their argument and I am of the opinion that the workman concerned is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages w. e. f. 21-1-1999 as the orders dated 30. 6. 1997 and 22-8-1998 respectively inexpedient issued by the employers. "
(3.) THE aforesaid cannot by any stretch of imagination, be called the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while deciding the reference, has to discuss the evidence and then arrive at its own finding so that it may be clear as to what was in the mind of the Tribunal because of which it had come to the conclusion, as may be arrived at in the particular set of facts and circumstances. In this case, there is no discussion of the evidence or the submissions made by the parties but straightaway the opinion has been expressed by the Tribunal and final order passed. As such the award cannot be said to be a reasoned or a considered award which the Tribunal, while determining the fights of the parties, is obliged to.;