Judgment : 1. THE Award dated 30.6.1989 published on 1st September, 1989 passed by the Labour Court (III) U. P. Kanpur, has been challenged by the petitioners, by means of present writ petition. Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the said Award on the ground that the respondent no. 1 was an employee in the U. P. Government Roadways, which was ultimately taken over by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The employees of U. P. Government Roadways continued to serve in the Corporation but they were not absorbed in the said Corporation. Having been appointed in the year 1965 by the U. P. Government Roadways he continued to serve in the Corporation after the same was created on 1st June, 1972. He was suspended on 25.8.1981 in contemplation of a departmental inquiry and was ultimately removed from service by an order dated 19th November, 1983, after he was found guilty in the domestic inquiry. The respondent no. 1 raised an Industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, out of which adjudication case No. 71 of 1985 was registered. In the said case by an order dated 6.2.1989 the disciplinary proceeding was held to be improper and was decided on merit by an Award dated 30th June 1989 directing reinstatement with back wages of respondent No. 1. 2. SRI V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the said award contends that the validity of U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1987 having been upheld in the case of N. P. Sharma v. Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport corporation, (1988 56 FLR 185 Alld. =1988 U. P. L. B. E. C. 155) the learned Labour Court had erred in placing reliance on the said judgment in the case of Ram Narain Tewari v. Joint General Manager, (1984 2 Lko. Civil Decisions p. 298) and holding that there was relationship of master and servant between the respondent no. 1 and the Corporation inasmuch as though he was serving in the Corporation the respondent no. 1 was a Government employee subject to the remedy before U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the respondent no. 1 and the Corporation inasmuch as though he was serving in the Corporation the respondent no. 1 was a Government employee subject to the remedy before U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the respondent no. 1 the same can not come under the purview of the decision of 'industrial dispute' as defined under the industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 4-K of the U. P. Act. The respondent no. 1 being a Government servant is not a workman within the meaning of definition of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as such, can not raise an Industrial dispute. By reason thereof the Labour Court having been appointed under the Industrial disputes Act and exercising jurisdiction under the power conferred upon him under industrial Disputes Act and deciding the disputes within the ambit and scope of industrial disputes, as defined under the said Act, had no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute, raised by a Government employee, with whom the Corporation had no relationship of employer and employee. Alternatively he argues that the services of respondent No. 1 has been terminated by the Regional Manager, who was empowered to terminate such services by virtue of ordinance, referred to above, the termination was valid and can not be questioned on the ground of jurisdiction as has been held in the Award on a misconception of law. Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, on the other hand contends that the disciplinary proceeding having been held to be improper and the Tribunal having decided the case on merits on the basis of material produced in the course of trial, the same is a finding of fact with which this court can not interfere. He further contends that the Regional Manager not being the appointing authority, could not have terminated the services of respondent no. 1. He further contends that since the respondent no. 1 was working under the Corporation alike all erstwhile employees under the U. P. Government Roadways all of whom were subsequently absorbed in 1982, the petitioner can not be treated to be on a different footing. According to him despite the said ordinance the order of termination by the Regional Manager, can not be held to be legal and valid. 1 was working under the Corporation alike all erstwhile employees under the U. P. Government Roadways all of whom were subsequently absorbed in 1982, the petitioner can not be treated to be on a different footing. According to him despite the said ordinance the order of termination by the Regional Manager, can not be held to be legal and valid. He further contends that the respondent No. 1 is to get his payment from the corporation and he used to serve the Corporation and the Corporation had terminated his services. Therefore, it can not be said that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the respondent No. 1. According to him if the respondent No. 1 is to be treated as a Government servant on deputation at the Corporation, in that event his services could not have been terminated, and he could only be repatriated to his parent department. He contends further that if there is no relationship of employer and employee, in that event the petitioner could not have held domestic inquiry and terminate his services. He could have at the best be returned to his parent employer. Therefore, the award given by the Tribunal can not be assailed and is to be affirmed. 3. THE question arose as to whether the erstwhile employees of the U. P. Government Roadways, placed at the disposal of U. P. State Road Transport corporation, were Government servant or not so as to embrace their case within the purview of U. P. Public Services Tribunal. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta and others v. State of U. P. and others, (1980 6 ALR Page 81) it was held that the employees of U. P. Government Roadways continued to be in service of the State Government although they were on deputation with the Corporation. There had been no privity of contract of service between the petitioner and the Corporation. As such the relationship of master and servant did not exist between them. Therefore, the petitioner did not fall within the category of workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. There had been no privity of contract of service between the petitioner and the Corporation. As such the relationship of master and servant did not exist between them. Therefore, the petitioner did not fall within the category of workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. IN the case of Bhopal Singh v. The Managing Director, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, (1986 12 ALR page 556=uplbec 634) it was held that the authority given to the Regional Manager who was not the appointing authority and, therefore, could not have the authority to dismiss or discharge, pursuant to the resolution dated 16-2-1974 of the Corporation or under U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers)Service Regulations, 1981. It was held in the said case that the order in the matter of disciplinary proceedings are emanating "basically in the course of day-to-day management or supervision over the staff as to originate from the Board, which is empowered to delegate its power in this respect to an officer. " This observation was arrived at on the basis of finding that "it is not in dispute that there is no delegation or authorisation by the Board in favour of any officers and "on the face of this set up it is difficult to maintain in our view that the delegation/authorisation which the corporation made under Section 12 (as it then existed) and in the making whereof the Board had no say nor has the Board adopted or ratified it subsequent to its creation may serve to negativate the authority of the Board. " This defect in the legislation of 1981 Regulation was sought to be cured by the U. P. State Road transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) (Appointing Authorities)Ordinance, 1987 (U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1987 ). The said Ordinance was subsequently replaced by U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) (Appointing Authorities) Act, 1987 (U. P. Act No. 15 of 1987 ). The said Ordinance was subject matter of challenge in the case of Nagendra Prakash sharma (supra ). The Division Bench in an illuminating judgment upheld the validity of the Ordinance. The retrospective operation of the said 1987 Ordinance with effect from 19th June 1981 was also upheld. The said Ordinance was subject matter of challenge in the case of Nagendra Prakash sharma (supra ). The Division Bench in an illuminating judgment upheld the validity of the Ordinance. The retrospective operation of the said 1987 Ordinance with effect from 19th June 1981 was also upheld. Therefore, it is no more open to challenge the authority of the Regional Manager, and the term 'as appointing and disciplinary authority' having jurisdiction to dismiss after 19th June, 1981. In the impugned Award dated 30-6-1989 the learned Tribunal had over-looked the situation emanating from the case of Nagendra Prakash Sharma (supra) altogether and had completely misdirected itself in proceeding on the basis of decision in the case of Bhopal Singh (supra ). So far as the question of applicability of the ratio decided in the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta (supra) is concerned the same does not continue to affect the situation after 1982. The changes emanated after 1982 may be summarised as hereinafter. 5. BY or under the Government order No. 000/30-2-170-N-72 dated 7th June, 1972 as amended by Government order No. 3414/30-2-170-N-72 dated 5th July, 1972 the service of the employees of the U. P. State Roadways Organisation (hereinafter referred to as U. P. S. R. O.) were placed on deputation with the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India the Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Organisation (Abolition of Posts and Absorption of the Employees) Rules 1982, was framed by the Government. The said Rules came into force on 28th April, 1982 by or under Notification No. 2051/xxx-2-170-N-N-72 of even date published in the Official gazette. The said rules were given overriding effect by means of Rule 3 (2) of the said rules and by Rule 3 (1) were made applicable to all employees of the U. P. S. R. O. working on deputation with U. P. S. R. T. C. The employees referred to in Rule 3 (1)was defined in Rule 2 (ii) as Government servant employed in U. P. S. R. O. and working on deputation with Corporation. Under Rule 4 (1) employees who did not wish to be absorbed in the service of the Corporation were to inform their option (Negative) to the Government. Under Rule 4 (1) employees who did not wish to be absorbed in the service of the Corporation were to inform their option (Negative) to the Government. All other employees who did not give option were deemed to have opted for absorption in the service of the Corporation in terms of rule 4 (2 ). Such employees who deemed to have been opted for absorption stood absorbed in the service of the Corporation and his service under the State government stood ceased on the expiry of three months from 28th April, 1982 viz. on 28th July, 1982 by means of Rule 4 (3 ). By virtue of Rule 5 (1) the relevant post of the State Government held by such absorbed employee stood abolished with effect from 28th July, 1982. Those who did not opt to be absorbed got their services terminated and dispensed with under Rule 5 (ii) on the expiry of the period of notice, mentioned in Rule 6. The consequences of absorption were provided in Rules 7 and 8. 6. THE said rule was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 3273 of 1982 (the leading judgment) Roadways Ministerial Staff Association v. State of U. P. and disposed of on 27th May 1989 by the Hon. Mr. Justice U. C. Srivastava and Hon. Mr. Justice S. H. A. Raza, wherein the validity of the rules were upheld. It is not stated that the petitioner had ever intimated his wish against absorption as contemplated in Rule 4 (1 ). Therefore he was deemed to have opted for absorption under Rule 4 (2) and stood absorbed in the service of the Corporation with effect from 28th July, 1982. The order of suspension dated 25th August, 1981 had nothing to do with the said 1982 Rules. A workman continues to be in service even when he remained under suspension. The deputation does not cease by reason of suspension. He continues to be an employee as defined in Rule 2 (ii) till his service was finally terminated on 19th November, 1982 i.e. long after 28th July, 1982 when he stood absorbed by reason of operation of Rule 4 (3 ). Therefore, as on 19th November, 1983 the petitioner was an employee with the Corporation having the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. 7. Therefore, as on 19th November, 1983 the petitioner was an employee with the Corporation having the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. 7. THERE is no dispute that the Undertaking of the Corporation is an industry and the petitioner is a workman. The termination of service is a dispute within the meaning of Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, can also not be denied. Therefore, the maintainability of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal/labour court can not be challenged on account of either absence of relationship or the dispute being outside the scope of Industrial Dispute. 8. BY an order dated 6-2-1989 disciplinary proceedings and the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and improper and the authorities were allowed to adduce evidence for substantiating their respective case on merit before the learned labour Court, which fact is recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award itself and which was translated at the bar during the course of argument. It appears from the said Award, as was translated at the bar that the learned Labour Court has not addressed itself on the merit of the respective cases, made out before it. The Labour court had proceeded simply on the basis of question that in view of the judgment in the case of Bhopal Singh (supra) the Regional Manager did not have authority to terminate the petitioner's service. Therefore, it appears that the learned Labour Court had proceeded completely on wrong footing and had interpreted the position in an incorrect manner. The Regional Manager by reasons of 1987 Ordinance/act had power to dismiss the petitioner, by reasons of delegation since been re-validated by reasons of the effect of 1987 Ordinance/act. Therefore, the finding of the learned Labour Court that the Regional Manager did not have authority to terminate the petitioner's services, is wholly perverse. 9. IN that view of the matter the award of the learned Labour Court can not be sustained and, as such, is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the finding of the learned Labour Court that the Regional Manager did not have authority to terminate the petitioner's services, is wholly perverse. 9. IN that view of the matter the award of the learned Labour Court can not be sustained and, as such, is liable to be quashed. Since the learned Labour Court has not gone into the merits of the case, therefore, it is desirable that the matter should be remitted to the learned Labour Court for deciding the case on merits on the basis of materials already on record and such other material as may be produced by the parties in the light of observations made in this judgment upon giving opportunity to both the parties as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the learned tribunal. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned award dated 30th June, 1989 as published on 1st Sept., 1989 passed by the Labour Court (III) U. P. Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 71 of 1985. A writ of mandamus also do issue accordingly containing the above directions to the learned Labour Court. 10. IN the result the petition succeeds and stands disposed of as above. There will be, however no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within seven days. Petition Allowed.