Dismissed

U.P.S.R.T.C. through Its R.M. v. Sri Yogendra Singh and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2021WRIC/45873/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging a Labour Court award that declared the workman's termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. However, since the workman had retired, the Court directed the employer to pay the benefits within four months without forcing the ex-workman to pursue further litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Employer directed to pay the backwages and benefits awarded by the Labour Court to the retired workman within four months.

U.P.S.R.T.C. through Its R.M. Vs Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45873 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Through Its R.M. Respondent :- Sri Yogendra Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,U.S. Singh Visen

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Durrani,Jamal Khan,Ranjeet Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

¶7

The writ petition is directed against the award dated 01.11.2014 passed by the labour court holding the termination of the services of the respondent workman to be illegal and directing reinstatement of the respondent workman with 60% backwages.

¶8

The substance of the charges against the workman in the chargesheet dated 27.11.2003 is that the petitioner was required to deposit the goods in the workshop on 04.11.2003. He deposited them on 05.11.2003. He was also charged with drunken behaviour. The domestic enquiry found that the charge of drunken

¶9

behaviour was not proved. However the delay of one day in depositing the goods was established.

¶10

The labour court in the impugned award has found that the domestic enquiry was vitiated and conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶11

The charge of one day's delay in depositing the goods was also established by legal evidence before the labour court. The charge of drunken behaviour could not be proved before the labour court.

¶12

In this wake the punishment of dismissal from service was clearly disproportionate.

¶13

There is another aspect of the matter. The disciplinary authority while passing the order of termination travelled beyond the show cause notice. Reliance was placed on earlier punishments imposed and past record of the respondent workman without noticing him. The petitioner travelled beyond the show cause notice while passing the order of termination.

¶14

The order of termination was passed by adopting the procedure not known to law and violating the

¶15

principles of natural justice.

¶16

The labour court also found that the show cause did not notice the workman on earlier punishments imposed upon the respondent workman. The said punishments were relied upon while passing the impugned order of termination.

¶17

There is no infirmity in the award of the labour court.

¶18

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

The workman has since retired from service, it will not be in the interest of justice to make the workman run from pillar to post seeking the backwages and the benefits granted by the labour court. The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C is directed to pay the benefits which are liable to be paid to the respondent workman in terms of the award of the labour court and dispense the same within a period of four months.

¶20

It is informed that 50% of backwages awarded to the respondent workman have already been disbursed. The remaining amount shall be dispensed with within the four months.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.11.2021/Nadeem

U.P.S.R.T.C. through Its R.M. v. Sri Yogendra Singh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.S.R.T.C. through Its R.M. v. Sri Yogendra Singh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Saumya Sweets Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Banarasi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Others

Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chandra Roy Chowdhary Vs Presiding Officer and 2 Others