- (1.) BOTH these writ petitions have been filed against the impugned Award dated February 14, 1990 passed by the respondent No. 1 Tribunal while deciding the reference dated December 5, 1987 whether the services of workman Mr. Devkinandan had been terminated in accordance with law and if not to what relief he was entitled for.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that Mr. Devkinandan, who is a respondent-workman is S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2885/1990 and petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4568/1990, had been appointed temporarily as a Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "the Corporation") and on four occasions he had been given a charge-sheet and after holding the full-fledged enquiry he was found to be guilty of various delinquencies and punishment had been awarded to him. The appeals fifed by him had already been finalised. However, the impugned order relates to an incident which occurred on October 21, 1982 when the vehicle, in which he was working as a Conductor, on inspection, was found having two passengers travelling without tickets. He had been given a charge-sheet on February 1, 1983 and was, also, put under suspension. The enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of the said report, the order of removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on October 10, 1983. Being aggrieved, the delinquent preferred an appeal and the same was rejected. Thereafter the delinquent approached the Labour Court by way of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). While deciding the said reference, the Labour Court resorted to the procedure provided under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it came to the conclusion that domestic enquiry conducted against the delinquent was fair and in consonance with law; however, the Court held that the delinquent must have been given one more opportunity to improve himself and, therefore, the order of removal was substituted by the order of reinstatement. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the Corporation preferred S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2885/1990. Against the same Award, the delinquent has, also preferred S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4568/1990 raising the grievance that the Labour Court has illegally deprived him from all consequential benefits of service and the full back wages on the ground that once the Labour Court has set-aside the impugned order of termination dated October 10, 1983, he should have been awarded all the consequential benefits and reliefs. As both the petitions have been filed against the same impugned Award, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(3.) HEARD Mr. B. S. Bhati, learned counsel for the Corporation and Mr. A. K. Rajwanshi for the workman-delinquent.;