JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was bus driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was suffering from Tuberculosis and Asthama. Due to his continued ill-health his services were terminated and he was paid Rs. 79,872/- towards retrenchment compensation and retiral dues etc. 3. The workman challenged his retrenchment in writ petition No. 33027 of 2002 in which the order of retrenchment was stayed by the High Court. In compliance with the interim order passed in that writ petition, the workman was reinstated in service and thereafter the department requested to refund amount of retrenchment etc., which was paid to him. The workman did not refund the aforesaid amount and informed the department that aforesaid amount be adjusted from his salary and other dues. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the department initiated departmental inquiry proceeding against the workman on the ground of embezzlement of amount of retrenchment compensation which was not being refund by him. He was thereafter removed from service vide order dated 29.1.2003 on ground of misconduct. 5. Aggrieved by his removal, workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, U.P. Agra whereas the case registered as Adjudication Case No. 14 of 2005. 6. He was thereafter removed from service vide order dated 29.1.2003 on ground of misconduct. 5. Aggrieved by his removal, workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, U.P. Agra whereas the case registered as Adjudication Case No. 14 of 2005. 6. After appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the Labour Court held that : ^^Jhed us viuh ftjg esa Li"V :i ls dgk fd ;g iSlk esjk D;ksafd cPpksa ds ykyu ikyu esa [kpZ gks x;k Fkk blfy;s okil u djds dgk Fkk esjs ns;d esa ls ys fy;k tk;A bl xokg us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;g iSlk esjk gkbZdksVZ vkus&tkus esa odhyksa dks nsus esa] cPpksa ds ykyu&ikyu] gekjh chekjh esa [kpZ gks x;k] ckdh chl gtkj cps Fks tks eSa foHkkx dks okil dj jgk Fkk foHkku us ugha fy;kA bl xokg us ;g Hkh dgk fd og csdkj gSa] chekj py jgk gS] mls dgha ukSdjh ugha feyhA fnukad 18-5-1992 dks Hkh eq[;ky; ds vknsk ls eq>s LFkk;h v{ke pkyd ?kksf"kr dj fn;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 24-12-1996 ds i= ls Hkh eq>s v{ke crk;k x;k FkkA fnukad 31-7-2001 ds vknsk }kjk eq>s oSdfYid dk;Z gsrq yxk;k x;k Fkk] tks igys ls gh ekStwn Fkk vkSj vkt Hkh miyCèk gSaA bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk fd eq>s osru dqN feyk Fkk dqN ckdh gSA bu lHkh rF;ksa dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, esjh jk; esa lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed dh jkeyky iq= Lo0 Jh ekbZjke ¼v{ke pkyd½ dh lsok;sa fnukad 29-1-1993 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oSèkkfud ugha gSaA vr% Jfed lsok lekfIr dh rkjh[k fnukad 29-1-2003 ls lHkh ykHkksa lfgr lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gS vkSj fnukad 29-1-2003 ls lsok esa ysus dh rkjh[k rd orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUr ,0 vkbZ0 vkj0 1989 ¼,l0 lh0½ 149 ist 1043 LdwVj bf.M;k fy0 y[kuÅ cuke yscj dksVZ o vkfn] dks è;ku esa j[krs gq, Jfed 75 izfrkr fiNyk osru Hkh ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS vkSj lsok;kstd okn O;; o Jfed dh kkjhfjd] ekufld] vkfFkZd ihM+k gsrq eqcfyx :i;s 20]000 Hkh Jfed dks vnk djsaA vknsk dk vuqikyu vfHkfu.kZ; ds izdkku dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj lsok;kstd djsaA eqvkots dh èkujkfk dks lsok;kstd o"kZ 1996 ds ,fj;j dh jkfk] rhu ekg 18 fnu dk vftZr osru dh èkujkfk ,oa udnhdj.k dh èkujkfk ls lek;kstu djus ds ckn ks"k èkujkfk dh dVkSrh Jfed ds ekfld osru ls vklku fdLrksa esa dh tk;s vFkok tks ns; èkujkfk Jfed ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS] mlesa ls lek;kstu dj ks"k èkujkfk Jfed dks vfHkfu.kZ; ds vuq:i ,d ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku djsaA rn~uqlkj lUnfHkZr okn fcUnq dk fuLrkj.k lsok;kstdksa ds fo:) ,oa Jfed ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA bl vfHkfu.kZ; dh nks izfr;ka kklu dks izdkkukFkZ Hkst nh tk,A fnukad 28-8-2006 g0v0 ¼,e0 ,y0 kekZ½ ihBklhu vfèkdkjhA** 7. Aggrieved by the award the corporation has come up in this writ petition. The Court at the time of admission on 4.6.2007 passed the following ad interim order : “Issue notice Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Tripathi who has put an appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1. The operation of the award dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed in case the petitioner reinstated the respondent No. 1 and to pay his salary which was being drawn by the respondent No. 1 on 29.1.2003. The respondent No. 1 may file a counter affidavit within a period of one month”. 8. After hearing the parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the amount of retrenchment compensation paid by the Corporation to the workman cannot said to have been embezzled by him for the reason that it was paid to him by the Corporation and was not taken out surreptitiously without their knowledge. After decision in the writ petition the em-ployers asked him to return the money but he could not return the same as he has spent a substantial part of it on up-bringing of his children and on his medical treatment. Therefore he informed the employee that aforesaid amount may be recovered from his salary. 9. The amount should therefore be treated as loan given to the workman and he had always shown his intention to pay the said amount which had been given to him by the Corporation as a retrenchment compensation and had not intentionally removed from the U.P.S.R.T.C. without their knowledge. The workman has retired from service on 31.8.2007 and has drawn his salary till the date of his retirement. 10. According to Sri Samir Sharma the workman has not returned any amount of retrenchment compensation from his salary. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances in my opinion equitable justice would be done if the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to the workman towards mental torture etc. is quashed. He has already worked in establishment under the order of this Court upto date of his retirement. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances in my opinion equitable justice would be done if the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to the workman towards mental torture etc. is quashed. He has already worked in establishment under the order of this Court upto date of his retirement. The amount of retrenchment compensation paid by the employer in the circumstances must be adjusted in the balance of arrears of salary and other dues issued to him towards retirement benefits for the deduction which he was already given consent to the employer. 12. The amount after adjustment of retrenchment compensation already paid to him shall be paid to the workman within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is partly allowed with aforesaid direction. ————