JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and Sri S.N. Dubey. 2. The petitioner-Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Jhansi Region, Jhansi has filed this writ petition. 3. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Chhakauri Lal was a driver in the Corporation. His services were terminated w.e.f. 21.9.2001 after holding domestic enquiry on charge of driving bus under influence of liquor. 4. In the domestic inquiry the stand of the workman stated that his services have not been terminated for any corrupt practice; that he does not ever take liquor or intoxicating drink and no medical certificate has been produced by the employer in the enquiry to establish that he was under the influence of liquor while driving the bus for which alleged act of misconduct, his services has been terminated. In his defence he also submitted that while he was driving the bus on 3.1.1993 on Kanpur Mahoba route, he became very sick and therefore stopped the bus at Maudha. Thereafter he requested the conductor to get a reliever driver. 5. The workman specifically denied the suggestion of the employer in the proceeding before the Labour Court that he was under the influence of liquor as alleged by the employees. The Labour Court on basis of pleading and on appreciation of evidence and record came to the conclusion that employers have failed to prove their case that workman was not ill and could not drive the bus being under the influence of liquor. The Labour Court also noted that workman was allegedly found in the bus by several persons with symptom similar to a person under the influence of liquor but those independent persons were neither produced nor summoned by the employers either in the domestic inquiry proceedings nor they were produced in the labour court. 6. The Labour Court also noted that workman was allegedly found in the bus by several persons with symptom similar to a person under the influence of liquor but those independent persons were neither produced nor summoned by the employers either in the domestic inquiry proceedings nor they were produced in the labour court. 6. The relevant extract of the impugned award in this regard is as under : ^^bl ekeys esa ftlds vkèkkj ij okn dk dkj.k mRiUu gqvk gS og gS i= bfXt0 bZ0&11 tks dsUæ izHkkjh] egksck }kjk lhfu;j QksueSu egksck fMiks dks fy[kk x;k gS ftlesa mUgksaus fy[kk gS fd --------------- cl dh okilh fnukad 3-1-1993 dks Fkh fdUrq Jh NdkSMh yky pkyd us cgqr vfèkd ukk dj j[kk Fkk ftlls eksngk ikl cl nq?kZVuk gksrs gksrs cph fdUrq fdlh gkyr ls og cl dks enksgk esa ykdj [kM+h dj nhA fnukad 4-1-1993 dks eksngk ds gh dqN lEHkzkUr O;fDr vk;s rFkk fnukad 3-1-1993 dh ?kVuk dh NdkSMh pkyd vaèkkèkqUèk ukk esa Fkk rFkk ;fn ;g pkyd ekxZ ij pyk;k tkrk jgk rks fufpr gh cgqr Hk;adj nq?kZVuk gks tk;sxh ftlls reke tkus Hkh tk ldrh gSa blesa vuqjksèk fd;k x;k gS fd cl tks ekSngk esa [kM+h gS vU; pkyd Hkstdj egksck eaxokus dh O;oLFkk djus dk d"V djsaA bl fjiksVZdrkZ Jh d`".k dk c;ku bZ0 MCY;w0&2 dh gSfl;r ls bl U;k;ky; esa djok;k x;k gS ftlus vius eq[; c;ku esa dgk gS fd bfXt0 bZ0&11 fjiksVZ esjs }kjk dh x;h gSa ;g fjiksVZ mlus NdkSM+h yky pkyd ds fo:) nh gS blesa tks dqN fy[kk gS og lgh fy[kk gS rFkk bfXt0 bZ0&6 mldh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA ftjg ds nkSjku bl xokg us dgk gS fd ^^eSaus lacafèkr Jfed dks kjkc fi;s gq, ugha ik;ka eSaus yksxksa ds crkus ij fjiksVZ bfXt0 bZ0&11 dh FkhA n.Mkfèkdkjh us esjk c;ku ugha fy;k FkkA ^^fjiksVZdrkZ dh fjiksVZ nwljksa ds c;ku ij vkèkkfjr gSA ftuds c;ku ds vkèkkj ij ;g fjiksVZ mUgksaus dh Fkh mu O;fDr;ksa dks U;k;ky; esa ugha isk fd;k x;k gS tcfd tks O;fDr muds ikl ,rn~ lacaèk esa lwpuk nsus ds fy;s x;s FksA ekeys esa cgqr egRoiw.kZ O;fDr Fks mudk uke irk rFkk lwpuk nsus ds lacaèk esa muds gLrk{kj izkIr djuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk&i= nsdj bUgsa xokg ds :i esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgsa xokg ds :i esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgsa Lo;a gh U;k;ky; esa isk dj ldrs FksA fjiksVZdrkZ Lo;a izR;{knkhZ ugha gSA bl izdkj dh nh x;h lwpuk vlR; Hkh gks ldrh gS vr% eSa ikrk gw¡ fd fjiksVZdrkZ dh fjiksVZ lafnXèk gS vkSj ml ij fookl iw.kZ :is.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ,slh fjiksVZ lafnXèk gS vkSj ml ij fookl iw.kZ :is.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ,slh fjiksVZ ds vkèkkj ij fnukad 21-9-2001 ls lsok lekfIr dj fn;k x;k n.M fdlh Hkh nkk esa mfpr ,oa oSèkkfud ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA fQj Hkh ;fn oknh viuh M~;wVh ds le; kjkc ihus ds ekeys esa Hkfo"; esa ik;k tk; rks mls dBksj ls dBksj n.M ftlesa mldh lsok lekfIr Hkh lfEefyr gS] fn;s tkus esa dksrkgh u cjrh tk; D;ksafd pkyd dk in cgqr egRoiw.kZ in gS ftlds cl lapkyu ds le; reke ;kf=;ksa dh tkusa mlds gkFk esa gksrh gS vkSj kjkc ihdj cl dk lapkyu djuk xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA pw¡fd orZeku ekeys esa tSlk fd Åij mfYyf[kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] vkjksi fookfnr Jfed ds fo:) izHkkfor ugha gS vr% mls fn;k x;k n.M fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡prk gw¡ fd lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed NdkSMh yky iq= Jh fko ckyd jke dh lsok,a vknsk fnukad 21-9-2001 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oSèkkfud ugha gSA eSa vknsk nsrk gw¡ fd lsok;kstd fookfnr Jfed dks rRdky mldh lsokvksa dh v[k.Mrk ds lkFk lsok esa ys vkSj lsok ls fudkys tkus ds fnukad ls lsok esa iq% fy;s tkus ds fnukad rd dh vofèk dk lEiw.kZ osru e; vuqeU; fgrykHkksa lfgr bl vfHkfu.kZ; ds ykxw gksus ds fnukad ls ,d ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku djsaA lsok;kstdksa dks ;g Hkh funsZk fn;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr Jfed dks lsok esa ysus ds ipkr] tSlkfd Åij dgk x;k gS] psrkouh i= vyx ls fuxZr dj nsa rkfd og ;fn fdlh izdkj kjkc ihus dk yrh gS rks Hkfo"; ds fy;s lpsr jgsA eSa ;g Hkh vknsk nsrk gw¡ fd lsok;kstd i{k Jfed i{k dks 300@& :i;k ¼rhu lkS :i;k½ dsoy okn O;; ds :i esa vnk djsaxsA g0 ¼fu;kt vgen½ ihBklhu vfèkdkjhA** Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the petitioner filed this writ petition. 7. At the time of admission following ad interim order was passed, which is as under : “Sri S.N. Dubey has appeared for the respondent No. 1. He prays for and is allowed one month’s time to file counter-affidavit. Subject to compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the impugned award dated 27.3.2004 published on 27.9.2004 shall remain stayed.” 8. Interim order was granted to the petitioner at the time of admission. He has clearly stated that the petitioner was reinstated and now retired from service. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the workman concerned was terminated illegally, unjustifiably and illegally and the Labour Court has given specific findings of fact that employer have failed to prove their case and have also has not been able to produce any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was driving the bus in state of intoxication. 10. The counsel for the respondents does not deny that no independent witnesses were produced by the department to establish the fact that the workman concerned had driven the bus in a state of intoxication or was found in such state. 11. The workman was not even got medically examined in this regard and no medical record was produced in the domestic inquiry proceedings or even before the labour court. 12. In my opinion that if bus driver person falls ill or sick in route to destination, it cannot be said that he has committed a misconduct by not taking the bus to its terminal. Since the employer has failed to prove their case and to show any illegality or infirmity in the ward of the labour court I am not inclined to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the labour court in this case. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. As a consequence learned counsel for the respondents will pay arrears of salary to the workman under the impugned award and shall also to make payment of his retiral benefit within a period of three months from today. 14. No order as to costs. ————