JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 26.2.2002 published on the Notice Board on 29.6.2002 passed by the Labour Court (I) U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 32/83. 2. Dharamveer Singh-respondent No. 1 was working as driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He was assigned the duty to drive bus No. U.S.C. 5323 on 19.8.1977. He was charged with the offence that he did not stop bus on signal given by the checking staff and the bus was stopped at Purkazi stoppage. He was further charged that he again started the bus and ran away in collusion with the conductor as a result whereof the bus could not be checked by the checking staff. He was charged with the offence that he did not stop bus on signal given by the checking staff and the bus was stopped at Purkazi stoppage. He was further charged that he again started the bus and ran away in collusion with the conductor as a result whereof the bus could not be checked by the checking staff. He was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 27.10.1977, containing the following charges, was issued : Þvki ij ,r}kjk fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxk, tkrs gSa %& 1- fnukad 18-8-77 dks vki }kjk pkfyr okgu la[;k 5323 fnYyh gfj}kj dks tc cjyk dkyst ij Jh ,l0 ih0 kekZ] lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax lØsM½ }kjk loZJh f”kojkt flag ls lS;n dslj vCckl lgk;d ;krk;kr fujh{kd ds lkFk Lo;a rFkk LVkQ dkj ls fujh{k.k gsrq jksdusa ds fy, ladsr fn;k rks vkius okgu dks ladsr ij ugha jksdk cfYd ladsr ls 55@60 xt vkxs ystkdj jksdkA T;ksagh fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh okgu rd ig¡qps rks ifjpkyd us okgu dk njoktk ugha [kksyk o vkidks pyrs jgus ds fy, dgus ij vki okgu dks Hkxk dj ys x;sA vr% vki fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ladsr dh tkucw>dj vogsyuk djus okgu esa fcuk fVdV ;k=h ifjpkyd ds lkFk feydj ys tkus ,oa Hkz’Vkpkj QSykus ds nks"kh gSaA lk{; tks nks’kkjksi.k dk leFkZu djrsa gS ,oa ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS %& ¼1½ lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psafdx½ dh fjiksVZ fnukad 22-8-77 ¼va”k izfrfyfi layXu½ ¼2½ lacaf/kr ekxZ i= vkfn ¼bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk ij ns[ksa tk ldrs gaSA½ 2- vki okgu dks fujh{k.k ls cpkus ds fufer cgqr gh rhoz xfr ls Hkkx dj ys x, ;gk¡ rd fd LVkQ dkj }kjk pasfdax LdosM us 100 fd0 eh0 izfr?kUVk dh xfr ls vkidh okgu dk ihNk fd;k x;k ,oa fujh{k.k gsraq jksdus ds fy, mls ikl ugha dj ldsA vr% vki ;kf=;ksa dh lqj{kk ,oa okgu dh {kfr dh dksbZ ijokg u djrs gq, okgu dks fujh{k.k ls cpkus ds fy, vksoj LihM pykus ds nks’kh gSasA lk{; tks nks’kkjksi.k dk leFkZu djrs gSa ,oa ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS %& ¼1½ lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax½ dh fjiksVZ fnukad 22-8-77 ¼va”k izfrfyfi layXu½ 3- mDr okgu dks vkius iqjdkth esa jksdk tgk¡ ij okgu ls dqN ;k=h mrjsA T;ksagh fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa us LVkQ dkj dks vkidks okgu ls vkxs lkbM esa yxkdj fujh{k.k gsrq iqu% okgu dks jksdus dk iz;kl fd;k vFkkZr ladsr fn;k rFkk vkokt Hkh yxkbZ fdUrq vki iqu% okgu dks lQkbZ ls fudky dj Hkxk ys x, QyLo:i okgu dk fujh{k.k ugha gks ldk rFkk okgu esa cSBs fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa dks ugha idM+k tk ldkA vr% vki foHkkxh; funsZ”kksa ds foijhr vkpj.k dj ckj&ckj fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds iz;klksa dks foQy dj vuq”kklughurk rFkk Hkz’Vkpkj QSykus ds ,oa ifjpkyd ds lkFk feydj fcuk fVdV ;k=h ys tkus ds nks’kh gSA lk{; tks nks’kkjksi.k dk leFkZu djrs gSa ,oa ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS %& ¼1½ lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax½ dh fjiksVZ fnukad 22-8-77 ¼va”k izfrfyfi layXu½ ¼2½ ekxZ i= la[;k 2888@028 ¼bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk ij ns[kk tk ldrk gS½ vr% vki izR;sd vkjksi ds mÙkj esa vius cpko esa viuk fyf[kr Li’Vhdj.k fnukad 7-10-77 rd ;k blls iwoZ v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk nsaA----------- 3. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice together with the enquiry report holding the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. The petitioner was removed from service vide impugned order dated 31.1.1978 and appeal preferred by him against the order of removal was also rejected vide order dated 15.1.1979. Thereafter, the workman concerned moved a representation against the orders of removal dated 31.1.1978 and rejection of appeal dated 15.1.1979 which was also rejected by the General Manager (Personnel), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 22.9.1981. 4. Dharamveer Singh-respondent No. 1, the concerned workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court (1) Meerut for adjudication where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 32/83. After exchange of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following seven additional issues : Þ1- D;k lsok;kstd }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p U;k;laxr ,oa mi;qDr gS \ 2- D;k tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu’d’kZ nwf’kr gSa \ 3- D;k Jfed dks izrkfM+r fd;k x;k gS \ 4- D;k nkfUMd izkf/kdkjh ds }kjk nqHkkZouk ls dk;Z fd;k x;k gS \ 5- D;k Jfed vU;= ykHkdkjh 6- D;k Jfed fdlh nqjkpj.k dk nks’kh gS \ 7- D;k vkjksi nkrk nUMnkrk o vuq”kklu izkf/kdkjh dks Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi i= nsus ,oa nUM nsus o ukSdjh ls fudkyus dk iwjh “kfDr ,oa izkf/kdkj izkIr Fkk ;fn ugha rks izHkko \ß 5. Additional issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were decided by the Labour Court together holding that no evidence, whatsoever, has been led on behalf of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation from which it can be proved that the driver had been given signal to stop the bus and that if the car of the checking squad was running at the speed of 100 kms per hour, it was not impossible for them to stop the bus as a governor was fitted in the bus to ensure that the bus is not overspeed. The Labour Court further found that neither copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman nor he was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the employers in the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court further found that neither copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman nor he was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the employers in the enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court found that in fact the bus had been taken out from the workshop at 19.40 hours on the date of incident for plying as such it is not possible that the bus could have been on road at 19.10 hours and as such, as charges levelled against the respondent-workman could have been framed. 6. The Labour Court decided additional issue No. 1 against the employers holding that the enquiry against the workman was neither fair and proper nor employers were able to prove the charges before it. In regard to additional issue No. 2 it was held that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. Additional issue No. 3 was decided holding that the workman was harassed for his trade union activities as he was a candidate for the post of President in the workers’ union. The Additional Issue No. 6 was decided holding that the driver was not guilty of any misconduct. 7. With regard to additional issue No. 4, it was held that the appellate authority has not passed order due to any malice. As regards additional issue No. 5, it was held that the workman was not gainfully employed after termination of his services. Lastly the additional issue No. 7 was decided holding that once the Court has found that the enquiry was not fair and proper, this issue was no longer relevant for deciding the controversy. 8. In view of the above findings, the Labour Court held that the order of termination of the workman dated 31.1.1978 was not legal and justified. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the question of relief which could be granted to the workman concerned. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with 60% of back wages. Cost of Rs. 500 was also imposed on the employers. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse as they are against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry proceedings. Cost of Rs. 500 was also imposed on the employers. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse as they are against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry proceedings. He has vehemently urged that the workman himself had not cross-examined the witnesses and that the charges against him in the enquiry were fully established. 10. Sri Siddhartha, counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the finding of the Labour Court wherein the facts and circumstances have been discussed in detail and cases cited the parties were considered. 11. From perusal of the record it is not explained as to when the bus was in the workshop on 18.8.77 at 19.40 hours how it could be on the road fully loaded with passengers at 19.10 hours when the checking staff is said to have given signal to the driver to stop the bus. The workman had also submitted application requesting for summoning the relevant register of the workshop to establish his case that in fact the bus had left the workshop at 19.40 hours. Hence the contention of counsel for the respondents that the working had been ‘framed’ and was not given opportunity in the domestic enquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case has force. In any case, the employers could have proved their action before the Labour Court. In this regard, a concrete finding has been recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the employers failed to prove that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and they also miserably failed to prove the charges. 12. There is no error in the impugned award rendered by the Labour Court much less any error of law apparent on the face of record. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 4.9.2002 is vacated. The counsel for the parties state that the petitioner was reinstated in terms of the interim order dated 4.9.2002 and was paid the current wages. As such, the award shall not be implemented in toto and the balance amount of benefits under the award for which the workman is entitled shall be paid to him within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ————