Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
(2.) Petitioner, a State Corporation, is assailing the award dated 28 July 2011 passed in Adjudication Case No. 3 of 2003 (Published on 4 November 2011), whereby, the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages. The respondent-workman was working as conductor, on 12 December 1985, he was deputed on Bus No. UHC-056 which was plying on Bijnore-Hyderabad route. On en-route checking, it was found that 12 passengers were travelling without ticket, though the workman had realised the fare from the passengers. He was also found to be under influence of alcohol, and refused to sign the entries made by the checking authority on the way-bill. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings was initiated vide charge sheet dated 16 January 1986, to which the first respondent replied. On conclusion of the enquiry, charges came to be proved, consequently, first respondent was terminated on 11 March 1986. The termination order was assailed in a petition before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 21 October 1996, pursuant thereof, the workman was re-instated on 13 February 1987. The first respondent, thereafter, preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected on 4 February 2002, revision also met the same fate which came to be rejected on 21 June 2002. Industrial dispute was caused to be referred by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was answered by the impugned award.
(3.) The first respondent, as well as, the petitioner entered appearance and filed their written statement, documents, and oral evidence was led on behalf of the Corporation. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the enquiry was not fair for the reason that principles of natural justice was violated as the appointing authority himself conducted the departmental enquiry, secondly, the charges were held not proved for the reason that no evidence was led by the Corporation to prove the accident which had taken place at the spot of checking; no other member of the checking party, other than Sri Indra Lal (EW-1), was produced; the checking team had not counted the cash in the cash bag of the first respondent; and no evidence was led to show that pecuniary loss was caused to the Corporation, accordingly, the termination order dated 11 March 1996 was set aside and the first respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages.;