Partly allowed

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020WRIC/2939/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a workman. The High Court held that when a domestic enquiry is vitiated, the employer must be given an opportunity to lead fresh evidence to prove charges. Consequently, the award was set aside, though the finding of vitiation was retained, and the matter was remanded.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 29.08.2019 reinstating the respondent was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Labour Court to allow the employer to lead fresh evidence within four months.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2939 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gopal Narain Srivastava,Sudhanshu Narain

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the employer the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 29.8.2019 (published on 13.11.2019).

¶7

The workman respondent No. 2 had raised an industrial dispute when his services were terminated by an order dated 23.08.2014. Thereafter a reference was made by the appropriate State Govt. on 8.4.2015. The petitioner filed a written statement and apart from supporting the domestic enquiry also prayed that if and when it was found that the Domestic Enquiry was vitiated then it be allowed to lead further evidence to establish the charges which they had levied against the delinquent workman. The reference was answered by the impugned award on 29.8.2019. While answering the reference, issues though never were framed before the passing of the award, the award itself contained four issues and issue No.1 was to the effect as to whether

¶8

the domestic enquiry was vitiated. After having found that the domestic enquiry was vitiated the Labour Court had answered the reference in favour of the workman and had, thereafter, set aside the order dated 23.08.2014 and reinstated the respondent No.2 with all back wages.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a judgement reported in 2001 (5) SCC 433, (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr.) submitted that if the Domestic Enquiry was found to be vitiated and if the employer had prayed for a further opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges which were levied against the workman then the Labour Court should have permitted the parties to place fresh evidence on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though in the order sheet of the adjudication case on two different dates namely on 14.2.2019 and 29.4.2019, the petitioner was directed to place its evidence, he submits, that the evidence could not have been brought on record or could not have been led till such time as the preliminary issue with regard to correctness of the domestic enquiry was decided. Learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner therefore submits that only after it was held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated could he have placed the further evidence. As the filing of the further evidence before holding that the enquiry was vitiated would have been an exercise in futility. He, therefore, submits that the award dated 29.08.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and may be set aside.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-workman however, submitted that when the employer was required to place further evidence as per the orders dated 14.02.2019 and 11.4.2019 then the employer should have placed the further evidence, which he submits was not done by them. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that in view of the settled law that further opportunity to lead evidence ought to have been afforded in the event the domestic enquiry was found to be vitiated, and when the same was not given into the petitioner, the award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The award dated 29.08.2019 to the extent it reinstates the respondent is set aside. The finding with regard to the fact that the Domestic Enquiry was vitiated stands. The matter is remanded to enable the Labour Court to allow the

¶13

employer to lead fresh evidence to prove the charges which were levied against the workman.

¶14

With these observation the writ petition is partly allowed.

¶15

The Labour Court to complete the proceedings within a period of four months from the production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.3.2020 vkj

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Pyari Devi Rajit Post Graduate College and Another Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Others

C/M Swarn Jayanti Post Graduate College through Its Manager and Another Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Others

Prem Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

G.E Employees Union Naini Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lucknow