- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 2-1-2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur. Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1955. On the charges of being absent from the duty unauthorisedly he was placed under suspension on 21-4-1981 and was served with a charge-sheet dated 15-5-1981. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings he was reinstated in service on 17-7-1982, He was again served with a charge-sheet on 8-3-1983 inquiry was conducted and vide order dated, 14-8-1984 he was dismissed, from service. Respondent No. 1 filed a departmental appeal which was also dismissed. Disciplinary vide order dated 25-6-1992 the dispute was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court. An issue was framed as to whether the disciplinary inquiry' conducted by the petitioner was fair and proper. The prescribed authority/labour Court vide order dated 21-6-2000 held that the disciplinary proceedings was not fair and proper as there is no proceedings available with regard to disciplinary inquiry and decided the issue against the petitioner-Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner-Corporation was given opportunity to prove the charges against the respondent-workman and to produce the evidence in respect thereof. The petitioner did not lead any evidence with the result, the Labour Court vide award dated 2-1-2003 held that the dismissal of respondent No. 1 from the service was not proper and he was entitled to be reinstated but since he had attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings he was held to be entitled to payment of wages from the date of dismissal till he attained the age of superannuation. However, on account of delay on his part in raising the dispute only 50% of the back-wages and other benefits was directed to be paid to him.
(2.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the relevant document relating to inquiry were filed before the Labour Court but the same had not been considered and the finding that departmental inquiry was illegal and unfair and no opportunity of hearing was given to respondent no. 1 is contrary to the evidence on record. It has further been urged that since respondent No. 1 himself failed to produce any evidence with regard to the. preliminary issue hence the finding on the said issue ought to have been recorded in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended on behalf of respondent-workman that the petitioner-Corporation failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that a fair and impartial departmental proceedings was conducted against respondent-workman. My attention has been drawn to the finding recorded by the Labour Court, while deciding the issue vide order dated 21 -6-2000, that no documents with respect to disciplinary proceedings have been filed. It has further been urged that even subsequently when the petitioner-Corporation was given opportunity by the Labour Court to produce evidence and to prove the charges on merits, no evidence was produced.;