ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER before this Court is Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation'). It has filed this writ petition against the award of the Labour Court, U.P. dated 21st February, 2009 passed in Adjudication Case No. 232 of 1993. Facts relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows: Respondent No. 2 i.e. Kedar Nath-II was employed as driver in the employment of the petitioner-Corporation. While he was driving vehicle No. U.P. 25/5004, an accident took place on 17th January, 1991 at around 3.30 a.m. while the bus was on route to Delhi. Respondent No. 2 was served with a charge-sheet dated 17th February, 1992 and after domestic enquiry, it was found that the respondent No. 2 was guilty of rashly and negligently driving, which resulted in loss being caused to the Corporation, therefore, his services were terminated under order of the Competent Authority dated 30th December, 1992. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Competent Authority, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, U.P. Bareilly, and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 232 of 1992. The dispute has been answered in favour of the respondent No. 2 under the award of the Labour Court dated 21st February, 2009. The Labour Court in the impugned award has recorded a preliminary issue was framed with regard to the domestic enquiry being free and fair or not. Issue was decided by the Labour Court on 30th January, 2008 and it was held that the domestic enquiry was not free and fair. The employers thereafter, prayed for evidence being led before the Labour Court itself for bringing home the charges. Accordingly evidence was led by both the parties before the Labour Court qua negligence of the driver (respondent No. 2) in the accident resulting in loss, caused to the Corporation. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that in the facts of the present case the Driver cannot be said to be negligent while driving the vehicle, as the accident had taken place because of the mistake on the part of the tractor driver, who turned his vehicle towards the right side without giving any signal and indication. The Labour Court, therefore, proceeded to hold that in the facts of the present case the driver (respondent No. 2) being not negligent in driving his vehicle cannot be faulted with for the accident. The order dismissing the respondent No. 2 from service was illegal and consequently it has been held that the order dismissing the respondent No. 2 from service was illegal. He shall be reinstated and treated to be in service. A lump sum payment of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded as payable to the respondent No. 2 towards back wages. This award is being challenged before this Court with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of North-East KRTC v. Devidas Manikrao Sadanand, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1788. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case, the Labour Court has not examined the applicability of doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and therefore, the award of the Labour Court is legally not justified.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.;