- (1.) HEARD Sri Sheshadri trivedi, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri sameer Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri Akhilesh Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. The workman, respondent No. 1 was working as a conductor and was charge sheeted for taking passengers without issuing tickets. A domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty of the charges. Based on the domestic enquiry, the Assistant Regional Manager issued an order of termination dated 30-6-1985. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the termination, preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by a judgment dated 30-9-1986 and the termination order was set aside on the ground-that the Assistant Regional Manager had no authority to pass the order of termination. It transpires that the aforesaid judgment was passed on the basis of a leading judgment of this Court in the case of Bhopal Singh v. UPSRTC passed in Writ Petition no. 8363 of 1986 decided on 10-9-1986. Based on the said judgment, the State Government issued an ordinance No. 9 of 1987 which was subsequently replaced by the U. P. Act No. 15 of 1987 Clause (3)of the said Act reads as under:- "notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority or any provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981, no orders made, actions or proceedings taken or jurisdiction exercised on or after June 19, 1981 by the officers authorised as appointing authorities by the Uttar Pradesh State road Transport Corporation under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Road Transport corporation Act, 1950 shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal of void merely on the ground that such authorised officers were not the appointing authorities. "
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid provision, a Division bench of this Court in 1988 (56) FLR, 185 upheld the validity of Act No. 15 of 1987 to be valid with retrospective effect. As a result of the aforesaid judgment, by virtue of the provision of Clause (3) of act No. 15 of 1987, the judgment of this Court dated 30-9-1986 passed in favour of the petitioner was rendered ineffective and the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the judgment passed in his favour. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid decision upholding the validity of the Act with retrospective effect, the termination order of the respondents became valid. From 1987 onwards, the workman remained silent and did not step into the matter except making wild allegations that he was representing before the authorities concerned and, eventually after a lapse of 13 years, a reference was made in the year 1988 referring the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication with regard to the validity and legality of the order of the termination dated 13-6-1985.
(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the workman filed his written statement alleging that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice and that no opportunity of hearing was given to him to defend himself and that, in any case, the charges was not proved against him. On the other hand, the management filed its statement in rejoinder, contending that the reference had become infructuous on account of the fact that the workman had challenged the order of the termination which was allowed by the High Court in a writ petition. Subsequently, by the Act No. 15 of 1987, the said judgment was rendered infructuous and the validity of the termination order was revalidated by Act No. 15 of 1987. The management further contended that no industrial dispute existed nor was it apprehended and that the State Government had committed an error in referring the dispute after a lapse of 13 years. The management also contended that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and that the principles of natural justice was complied, and that, in any case, the charges stood proved against him which was serious in nature warranting an order of the termination of the service.;