Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Sameer Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the workman.
(2.) IT transpires that a checking was conducted in the bus in which several passengers were found travelling without tickets. On this basis, the workman, who was the conductor of the bus, was charge- sheeted. The disciplinary authority not only issued the pharge-sheet but also conducted the inquiry and, on the basis of the evidence brought before it, passed an order for the removal of the services of the workman. The workman filed a departmental appeal and thereafter a review application and, eventually, raised a dispute after almost four years under the provisions of Section 4-Kof the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act with regard to the validity and legality of the order of his removal. On the basis of the pleadings, a preliminary issue with regard to the fairness of the inquiry was framed. The Labour Court held that the inquiry was not fair and proper and that the principles of natural justice was violated becaus'e the Inquiry Officer had not submitted any inquiry report. On this ground the inquiry was vitiated and the employers were directed to lead the evidence on merit. The Labour Court thereafter, on the basis of the evidence brought on the record gave an award holding that the removal of the workman from the services of the Corporation was unfair and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. The Labour Court found that even though there were certain passengers who were travelling without tickets, there was no Rule that the bus could not proceed or start unless a ticket was issued to all the passengers. Consequently, the Labour Court held that the mere fact that certain passengers were travelling without tickets did not mean that the conductor had committed a misconduct or had taken the money without issuing the tickets. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. At the time of the admission of the writ petition, the entire award was stayed by an order dated 28.3.1989. Subsequently, by an order dated 7.5.1991, the interim order was modified directing that the workman would be reinstated and would be paid last drawn wages. Subsequently, the Court, by an order dated 3.2.1993 directed that the workman would be paid the current revised salary. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that based on the interim orders, the workman has been reinstated and is being paid the current salary and is presently working to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court is manifestly erroneous in law and was liable to be quashed. THE learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court committed an error in setting aside the domestic inquiry on the ground that it was unfair. THE learned counsel submitted that where the disciplinary authority was the Inquiry Officer himself, in that event, he was not required to submit an inquiry report since all the evidence was before him and therefore, the finding of the Labour Court.that the domestic inquiry was unfair on account of the non-submission of the inquiry report was totally perverse. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Rarrizan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471, wherein the Supreme Court stated that it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to furnish an inquiry report where the disciplinary authority himself was the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel further submitted that, in the event, the finding of the Labour Court on this aspect is set aside and the inquiry is found to be fair, in that event, the Labour Court could not have gone into the validity and legality of the order of termination but could have only considered the quantum of punishment, namely, as to whether the punishment of removal commensurated with the misconduct or not.;