- (1.) BOTH these writ applications are disposed of by this common order, since the challenge by the petitioners in both the applications is to the same impugned Award dated 09.01.2002 (Annexure - 1), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 21 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the Management, namely, the B.S.R.T.C. has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement in service and other benefits.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The Award of the Labour Court as made in the Reference Case No. 21 of 1998 was in connection with the dispute raised between the Management of the B.S.R.T.C. and the workman - Prahlad Ahuja which was referred for adjudication by the Government of Bihar vide Notification No. 7/Shram -1 -2002/98 L and R -3648, dated 25.09.1998. The terms of reference was as follows: - "Whether the dismissal of Shri Prahlad Ahuja, Driver, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief, he is entitled to - While the Management (B.S.R.T.C.) has challenged the Award on the ground that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the workman has challenged the Award on the ground that the Award for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement of back wages and other benefits is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) FACTS of the case briefly stated is as follows: - The workman, Prahlad Ahuja was employed as a Bus Driver under the B.S.R.T.C. A chargesheet was served upon him on 16.05.1988 on the charge of misconduct and of violating the Rules of the Corporation. The substance of the charge, as per the complaint of the Time Keeper, is that on 25.04.1988, at around 10.:15 A.M., the Bus bearing Registration No. 8628, of which the workman was the Driver, reached at the Tatanagar Railway station counter, but he in connivance with the conductor of the Bus, left the Bus stop for onward journey without making any entry in the Master challan regarding the number of passengers and luggages and had fled away after forcibly taking the challan from the Time Keeper at the counter. The workman submitted his explanation denying the charges. His explanations having not been found satisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him. The workman was given opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report holding that the charge against the workman was proved. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the workman raised the industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the labour court. The main ground on which the workman had challenged the order of dismissal was that the enquiry conducted against him, was not fair and that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry officer are perverse and not in consonance with the evidences adduced even by the Management. The Management in its turn, challenged the very reference of the dispute to the Labour court for adjudication and had also contended that the Labour court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact and on the decision taken by the employer. ;