- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ petition is directed against award dated 28-3-1998 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court U. P, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 272 of 1992. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its employee Ram Pati respondent No. 3 with effect from 22-8-1978 was valid or not. Reference was made through government order dated 25-3-1992 and the Industrial Dispute was raised by respondent No. 3 in 1991 through C. P. Case No. 40 of 199; i. e. , after about 13 years of his termination. The labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages.
(2.) SERVICES of respondent No. 3 who was conductor were terminated after domestic enquiry. Preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was framed on 23-8-1993. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court in respect of the said issue passed an order on 29-9-1993 mentioning therein that the Administrative Clerk had died hence no evidence could be given by the employer with regard to fairness of domestic enquiry. The Labour Court due to absence of any evidence on behalf of the employer held that the enquiry was not fair and permitted the employer to prove the charge before the Labour Court. In para 7 of the award, it is mentioned that 12 documents were filed by the employer and 26 by the workman. In para 8, it is mentioned that no party adduced any oral evidence hence no document was proved in accordance with law. The charge against the respondent No. 3 was that he was carrying ticket less passengers and this mistake was detected at the time of surprise checking.
(3.) IN the absence of any evidence on behalf of the employer the labour Court held that the charge was not proved. In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 8-2-1999 directing the employer to deposit 50% back wages and payment of wages from the date of award. According to Sri K. P. Agarwal learned Counsel for the workman the workman was taken back in service after the impugned award and interim order passed in this writ petition and he retired on 31-1-2004. The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that undue delay i. e. , delay of 7 or more years in raising the dispute is fatal. However, the learned Counsel for the workman has argued that question of delay was not raised by the employer before the, Labour Court.;