- (1.) JAGDISH Bhalla, J. These two w petitions are connected writ petitions are the reason that it arises out of order dismissal dated 31st December, 1973 the petitioner of this W. P. N. 228/1989. A grieved by said order of dismissal Jagat Mohan Lal Dubey, who has been array as opposite party No. 3 in writ petition No. 1107 of 1980 and is petitioner is writ petition No. 228 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The claim petition preferred by the claimant was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by order dated 16th November, 1977 passed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the claimant raised industrial dispute with regard to his dismissal order dated 31st December, 1973 and the State of Uttar Pradesh vide Notification dated 5-5-1979 referred the following dispute for ad judication to the Labour Court, U. P. , Lucknow: "jta SKWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK JAOAT MOHAN LAL DUBEY (SIC) DIN ANK31-12-72se KARYASE (SIC) /wanchjt KIYA JATA (SIC) In the meantime the claimant moved application for review/recall of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 16-11-1977 inter alia, on the ground that the claimant was appointed in U. P. Roadways and was a Government Servant and, therefore, he cannot be treated as workman and in this connection the claimant relied upon a case of Ram Krishna Yadav v. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and others, 1981 LLT (Services) 101. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties recalled its earlier order dismissing the claim peti tion on the ground of availability of alter native remedy and listed the matter for final hearing on merits. However, after hearing the parties the claim petition was dismissed by Judgment and order dated 9-12-1985 passed by the Tribunal. Ag grieved by said judgment and order, the claimant filed Writ Petition No. 228 of 1989 before this Court. It may be men tioned here that the claimant did not in form the Labour Court that his applica tion for review has been allowed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the claimant is not a workman and the same has been restored to its original number. Therefore, the Labour Court continued with the adjudication proceedings in view of the reference made to it by the State Government and accordingly passed an award dated 13th August, 1979.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 1107 of 1980 was heard by this Court and was dismissed by judgment and order dated 13-2-1987. Ag grieved by said order, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation moved restoration application on the ground that the Cor poration was not aware of the order passed by this Court. The review petition was heard and order dated 13-2-1987 dismiss ing the writ petition was recalled with a direction that the writ petition be heard on merits. In the facts and circumstances nar rated above, I am of the view that it was the duty of the claimant to inform the Labour Court that his review application moved before the Tribunal was allowed and his claim petition was restored to its original number to be heard on merits and accord ingly he should have prayed that the ad judication proceedings pending before the Labour Court be dropped having become infructuous, but the claimant for reasons best known to him pursued both the remedies together. In my opinion, this should not have been done by the claimant. Therefore, the conduct of the claimant stinks and it is clear that the claimant had concealed the true facts from the Labour Court. The conduct of the claimant is depricated, In the circumstan ces, since the claimant himself had come forward with a review application on the ground that he is not a workman, he should not have proceeded with the mat ter pending before the Labour Court and only on this ground the award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. In the circumstances, the award dated 13-8-1979 passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed. The claim petition was heard on merits by the learned Tribunal and the claim of the claimant was rejected. The case of the claimant before the learned Tribunal was that the claimant was a Government Servant and, therefore, was not a workman and hence he be allowed to be heard by the Tribunal and that the claimant was wrongly dismissed from ser vice. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the claim petition, the claimant filed appeal to the General Manager and the appeal was also rejected by order dated 10th May, 1976. The dismissal order was passed after serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner who submitted reply and the claimant was given full opportunity to defend himself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon before this Court on the award passed by the Labour Court and vehemently argued that in view of the award of the Labour Court, the judgment of the Tribunal is illegal, without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed.
(3.) I am of the opinion that the claimant himself had moved the Tribunal claiming himself not to be a workman and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction and has been quashed in writ petition No. 1107 of 1980 (SS ). Learned Counsel for the claimant could not indicate any other ground which could show that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. I find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the matter in detail and, therefore, the writ petition against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal (Writ Petition No. 228 of 1989) is also liable to be dismissed. In the result, writ petition No. 1107 of 1980 (SS) is allowed and the award of the labour Court dated 13-8-1979 con tained in Annexure No. 6 to writ petition No. 1107 of 1980 (SS) is quashed and writ petition No. 228 of 1989 filed by Jagat Mohan Lal Dube, the claimant, against the judgment and order dated 31-12-1973 is dismissed.;