Corporation filed writ challenging Labour Court's reinstatement order. High Court found charges not serious enough for termination and refused interference. Petition dismissed.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29332 of 2004
Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Thru Regional Manager Respondent :- Anar Singh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,U.S. Singh Visen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Swarup,V.K. Agarwal
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the respondent workman is duly represented, none has appeared on his behalf even when the matter is taken up in the revised call.
An industrial dispute was raised at the behest of respondent workman in respect of the validity of the act of the petitioner Corporation terminating him from service. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 10 September 1986 upon conclusion of a departmental enquiry which was initiated against him. The charge which was levelled against him was that he had been negligent in the driving of a bus of the Corporation which resulted in it being damaged to the extent of Rs. 200/-, its tyre tubes being damaged resulting in loss of Rs. 2125/- and 10 liters of extra diesel having been consumed. On an earlier occasion, the Labour Court proceeded to answer the reference in favour of the petitioner Corporation. That award was challenged by the respondent workman before this Court in a writ petition and the writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of the Court on 3 December 2002. The learned Judge principally held that since the award was devoid of any reasons, it could not be sustained. The said judgment was challenged by the
Corporation before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4008 of 2003. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the Labour Court for decision afresh and on merits. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the impugned award has come to be rendered.
The Labour Court has principally noted that the petitioner had failed to prove and establish the charge of negligence which was levelled and that merely because the respondent workman had confessed in the departmental proceedings that could not have justified the termination of his services. It accordingly proceeded to direct the reinstatement of the respondent workman and the payment of back wages to the extent of 50%.
As this Court reads the nature of the charges which were levelled against the respondent workman, it is of the firm view that the same were not as serious so as to merit dismissal or termination. The view ultimately taken by the Labour Court in directing reinstatement of the respondent workman consequently does not merit any interference.
The petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2019 LA/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's direction to reinstate a workman discharged for negligence in driving a bus.
Whether the charges of negligence and property damage leveled against the workman were serious enough to warrant dismissal or termination.
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition against the reinstatement order requires intervention by the High Court.
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn.
Anar Singh And Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
