- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Writ petition No. 11516 of 1992 was filed challenging the award dated llth November, 1991 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal (I), U. P. , Allahabad in adjudication case No. 100 of 1988 by the delinquent workmen. In the said award the punishment or removal was reduced to that of stoppage of two incre ments. Mr. A. P. N. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged that part of the award by which the charges No. 3 and 4 were found to have been proved against the delinquent petitioner and by. which the lesser punishment of stoppage of increments was awarded. He has con fined his attack only to that part of the award.
(2.) ACCORDING to him the finding that the charges No. 3 and 4 were proved, is wholly perverse and based on no material and is contrary to clause (xiii), paragraph 21 of the Instructions Laying Down the Duties, Functions and Responsibilities of the Management, Operating and other Personnel at the Level of Depots and Sub-Depots etc. in the U. P. Government Road ways. ACCORDING to him, on the basis of the materials, the said charges could not have been proved particularly in view of the provisions contained in clause (xiii) of paragraph 21 aforesaid. Therefore, the award should be modified to that extent and the petitioner should be allowed reinstatement with all backwages with all. service benefits. Writ Petition No. 17612 of 1992 has been filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the same award on the ground that after having found that charges Nos. 3 and 4 proved, there was no justification for reducing the punishment since by reason of the said finding of fact, the petitioners was found to have been carrying pas sengers without ticket, which amounts to a loss of confidence in the delinquent by the employer. When loss of confidence is there, the court cannot compel the employer to retain such employee on whom the employer had lost its con fidence. The said award has also been at tacked on the ground that the charges No. 1 and 2 were discharged on the ground that those were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Since the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable in respect of a domestic enquiry and that in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal and the proceedings not being criminal proceed ings as such the ground that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the proof of the charges. According to Mr. Samir Sharma, counsel for the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, there was suffi cient material to prove the guilt of the delinquent. He also relied on some decisions, to which reference shall be made at appropriate stage. He also con tended that under Section 11-A of the In dustrial Disputes Act, read with Section 6 (2-A) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal may have jurisdiction to alter the punishment but that does not empower the Tribunal to alter the punish ment arbitrarily without having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, the punishment was awarded some times on 9th January, 1976, whereas the dispute was sought to be raised by the delinquent on 29th Septem ber, 1986 and, ultimately, the reference was made on 18th July, 1988. Therefore, the petitioner himself had delayed the process for l0 years. This should have been taken into consideration as one of the ground on which the Tribunal should have refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A. Alternatively, he argues that even if it had exercised the said jurisdic tion, it should not have granted back wages for the entire period during which the petitioner himself was liable for delay. He also contends that as and when the con fidence is lost, it is not open to the Tribunal to alter the punishment and compel the employer to retain him. He further con tends that the proceedings can be con cluded through demestic enquiry on the basis of the statements of the checking staff. Even if the passengers are not ex amined since the passengers are not avail able it would not be a lacune, since it is not criminal proceedings following the provisions of the Evidence Act. He also relies on clause (xiii), paragraph 21 of the said Instructions and contends that the enquiry was conducted following said In structions. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 24563 of 1993 has been moved by the delinquent petitioner on the ground that despite an order passed by the Court, the petitioner was not reinstated and was not paid his wages.
(3.) WRIT Petition No. 31151 of 1993 has been filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order passed by the Tribunal seeking to recover the wages subsequent to the order of the Tribunal reinstating the petitioner. Writ Petition No. 1997 of 1994 was filed by the delinquent workmen for the purpose of issuing a direction for provid ing the Attendance Register on which the petitioner could sign to mark his atten dance.;