JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The Central Workshop of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is referred to as ‘Central Workshop’ is registered under the Indian Factories Act, 1948. The service conditions of all the workmen are governed by the provisions of Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Central Workshop. The employees/workmen of the Central Workshop have framed Trade Unions to represent the cause of the workmen. It appears that the petitioner as a member of Union “Majdoor Vahini” and erstwhile President alongwith his colleagues had raised the grievance of fitment/fixation of pay by implementing the report of the First and the Second Pay Commission. 3. It is claimed that on account of a demand raised by the petitioner on behalf of the Union, the Dy. General Manager got annoyed as he wanted to deprive the lawful right of the workers. Ultimately, an agreement was reached between the Management of the Allen Forest Workshop, Kanpur and the Union on 29.9.1988 whereby it was agreed that the matter of fitment/fixation of First and Second Pay Commission be referred to the Headquarters Lucknow for removing pay anomaly in the pay scale of Workshop namely Black Smith, Turner II, Welder II and Tin-smith II. It is also claimed that as there occurred undue delay on the part of the respondents in taking a decision regarding fixation of the proposed pay scales for the aforesaid four types of employees. The petitioner as President of the Mazdoor Vahini filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24440 of 1988 for redressal of grievances of the workmen. 4. It is further claimed that the Dy. General Manager used some abusive language against the office-bearers of the Trade Union and as such the Secretary of the Trade Union lodged a first information report at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur against the Dy. General Manager on 12.4.1986 wherein the petitioner and his colleagues were cited as witnesses. It is also stated that as a counter blast to the first information report lodged by the Secretary, the Dy. General Manager also lodged a first information report against Bans Gopal Avasthi at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur on 14.4.1986 under Section 147/323/341, IPC read with Section 17 of the Untouchability Act. This report is said to have been lodged against one Rameshwar Prasad, a henchmen of the Dy. General Manager. 5. General Manager also lodged a first information report against Bans Gopal Avasthi at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur on 14.4.1986 under Section 147/323/341, IPC read with Section 17 of the Untouchability Act. This report is said to have been lodged against one Rameshwar Prasad, a henchmen of the Dy. General Manager. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended pursuant to the first information report dated 14.4.1986 on the basis of the report dated 13.5.1986 submitted by the Service Manager (Group No. 2) Central Workshop. In the meantime while the petitioner was under suspension, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 28.8.1986 alleging that on 12.12.1986 he alongwith the workers of the employees Union while delivering a inflammatory speech threatened that the petitioner will set right Dy. General Manager and further incited the persons to drag the Dy. General Manager out of his room. 6. It is averred that due to the inflammatory speech delivered by the petitioner the untoward incident could have taken place. Therefore, the petitioner was charged for having violated the provisions of sub-clauses (9) and (11) of Clause 25 of the Certified Standing Orders. The charge-sheet was accompanied by a complaint allege to have been lodged by Sri Lala Ram Yadav, Gate Sargent on 13.12.1985. 7. According to the petitioner no such incident as alleged in the charge-sheet had ever taken place on 12.12.1986 and the charge-sheet dated 28.8.1986 was without any basis but was only with a view to harass him and take the revenge. Apart from the allegation made against the petitioner, the allegations were made against some other employees including Sri Bipin Bihari Lal Srivastava, also who was the Secretary of the union at the relevant time. 8. The petitioner was reinstated by order dated 11.9.1986 but the inquiry continued against him on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 28.8.1986, Sri O.P. Misra, Assistant Transport Engineer in the Central Workshop was appointed as the Enquiry Officer who submitted an enquiry report pursuant to which order dated 15.4.1989 has been passed. 9. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 9686 of 1989 challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 15.4.1989 which was stayed by the High Court on 18.5.1989 and continued in force till the writ petition was dismissed in default. 10. 9. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 9686 of 1989 challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 15.4.1989 which was stayed by the High Court on 18.5.1989 and continued in force till the writ petition was dismissed in default. 10. From the record it appears that vide order and judgment dated 27.1.2000 the Court had held “that the punishment imposed on the respondent is highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Accordingly, in place of removal from service, the employer was given an option to pass fresh order of minor punishment. The respondent was held entitled to full back wages.” 11. The aforesaid order and judgment was challenged by the employers UPSRTC in Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2000 in which the Apex Court observed that “Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the matter was decided ex parte even without looking at the serious nature of the allegations and the background facts as highlighted in the counter filed. The scope for interference with an order of punishment is very limited and when the departmental inquiry is held to be in order, the scope for substituting one punishment with another punishment is totally non-existent. We have perused the records. From the impugned order itself it appears that the matter was decided ex parte. Accordingly to appellants, the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the Corporation was on account of the revision of the cause list suddenly and that was the reason as to why the learned counsel for the Corporation, who was appearing all through, could not appear before the Court on the date fixed. On the aforesaid background we feel it appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2998 of 1992 before the High Court shall be restored to its original position. As the writ petition is of the year of 1992 it would be appropriate if the matter is taken for early disposal. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that another writ petition being No. 7686 of 1989 wherein challenge has been made by the respondent to the termination, is also pending consideration. The High Court will consider desirability of hearing both the writ petitions together. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that another writ petition being No. 7686 of 1989 wherein challenge has been made by the respondent to the termination, is also pending consideration. The High Court will consider desirability of hearing both the writ petitions together. With the above directions this appeal is disposed of.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that during pendency of the proceedings culminating in the order dated 15.4.1989, a false complaint was again made against the petitioner at the instance of the respondents particularly the then Dy. General Manager alleging therein that on 2.7.1988 the petitioner used threatening language against the Senior Foreman Sri Suraj Prakash Saxena. Again on the basis of the said allegation a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.7.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner has been suspended from service by order dated 6.9.1988. He was also served a show cause notice alongwith charge-sheet reply to which was submitted by the petitioner on 25.7.1988 stating therein that no incident as alleged in the charge-sheet took place on 2.7.1988 and the complaint against the petitioner is frivolous, fictitious and has been prompted on account of extraneous and malafide considerations. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved an application on 19.11.1988 before the Enquiry Officer praying therein that he may be supplied copies of the documents mentioned in the application for proving his innocence. He also prayed in the said application that he may be permitted to be represented by a person competent to effectively cross-examine the witnesses produced before the Enquiry Officer. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Service Manager (respondent No. 2) on 15.11.1988. The petitioner again moved another application on 27.9.1990 for producing the witnesses mentioned by Suraj Prakash Saxena in his complaint to be the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident dated 2.7.1988. 14. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer without dealing with the specific charges against him submitted a frivolous and sketchy enquiry report on 7.12.1990. 15. The petitioner again moved another application on 27.9.1990 for producing the witnesses mentioned by Suraj Prakash Saxena in his complaint to be the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident dated 2.7.1988. 14. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer without dealing with the specific charges against him submitted a frivolous and sketchy enquiry report on 7.12.1990. 15. After conclusion of the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.4.1991 which was replied by the petitioner stating therein that the entire proceedings against him are false, frivolous, vexatious and the enquiry officer has acted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he did not afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 16. According to the petitioner apart from Suraj Prakash Saxena who had made complaint at the behest of the Manager, statement of Triloki Nath and Lalta Prasad were also recorded, which are appended as Annexures-7 to 10 to this writ petition from which nothing is found against the petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three points before the Court which are as under : (1) that the workmen under Section 6-E of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are entitled for protection and they could not have been terminated without prior approval of the authorities concerned; (2) that principles of natural justice has not been applied in their case; (3) that the punishment imposed against the workmen are disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workmen; and the order of punishment has been passed in order to take revenge and as such the same is liable to be set aside. 18. Sri Samir Sharma, Advocate appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that Section 6-E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable in the case of the workmen as the workmen have not presented their matter before the Conciliation Officer, Labour Court. Sri Sharma, further urged that in so far as principles of natural justice is concerned, the application of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses has been rejected by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the same was not relevant. From perusal of the application moved by the petitioner it also appears that the document summoned by the petitioner has no nexus with the enquiry and the petitioner had not given the relevancy of summoning the documents. From perusal of the application moved by the petitioner it also appears that the document summoned by the petitioner has no nexus with the enquiry and the petitioner had not given the relevancy of summoning the documents. The said application is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 19. In respect of the third point raised by the petitioner regarding punishment, I have gone through the statements of the witnesses i.e. Suraj Prakash Saxena, Lalta Prasad and Triloki Nath and the petitioner which have been appended as Annexures- 7 to 10 to this writ petition. 20. The relevant portion of statement of Suraj Prakash Saxena is quoted as under : ÞeSa fn0 2-7-88 dks lhfu;j QksjeSu foHkkx 2 lqij LVªDpj ,oa csfYMax lsDlu esa rSukr FkkA esjs lkFk Jh vkj0,l0 oekZ twfu;j QksjeSu Jh ykyrk Álkn eSdsfud rFkk nks vÁsfUVl lqijokbtj Jh vt; lgk; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj Hkh rSukr Fks ;s lHkh yksx fnu dh ikyh esa rSukr FksA jkstkuk lqcg dk;Z izkjEHk ds le; izR;sd deZdkj LVstokbt odZ ,ykVesUV fd;k tkrk gS ;g dk;Z fyf[kr :i ls ,ykVesaUV jftLVj esa djrs gS vkSj rRlEcfU/kr deZdkj dks crk nsrs gSaA fn0 2-7-88 dks izkr% tc eSa odZ ,ykVesUV kki esa vUnj dj jgk Fkk rc Jh jke u{k= fV0 ua0 668 us eq>s odZ ,ykVesUV jftLVj ij fyf[kr :i ls vafdr djus dks euk fd;kA Jh jke u{k= dks ;g Hkk"kk oM+h gh rst ,oa xqLls dh FkhA ml le; Jh jke u{k= us ;gka rd dgk fd rqe ;gkWa [kqjkQkr djuk pkgrs gksA Jh jke u{k= us ;g kCn eq>ls dgs FksA bUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk fd vki lsDlu ls pys tk;sA vHkh rd ;gka fdlh us Hkh dk;Z fyf[kr :i esa vafdr djds ,ykVesUV ugha fd;k gSA vki ;gka ls pys tk;s vc eSa ¼Jh jke u{k=½ tks dejs esa mifLFkr gS A ns[kwaxk fd rqe ;gkWa jgksxsa ;k eSaA ;g lHkh ckrsa Jh jke u{k= us cM+s gh vkos’k esa dghaA bl okfd, ds le; Jh vkj0,l0 oekZ twfu;j QksjeSu FksA** 21. The relevant portion of statement of Lalta Prasad, Mechanic Supervisor, who was present in the workshop is as under : ^^2-7-88 dks Hkh eSa mlh in ij lqijLVªDpj esa eSdsfud Fkk ml fnu 8-00 cts izkr% dk;Zkkyk esa mifLFkr Fkk lwjt izlkn gekjs ,l0,Q0 Fks odZ ,ykV djus dk vf/kdkj mUgsa gS vkSj oSls esa gh djrk gwWa 2-7-88 dks 8-00 cts Jh lwjt izdkk lDlsuk vkSj Jh jke u{k= ¼mifLFkr tkap d{k½ ds chp odZ ,ykVesUV dks ysdj dksbZ uksad>ksd gq;h rks eSa ogka ml le; mifLFkr u Fkk lsDku dkQh cM+k gS nwj rd gS eS dgha vkSj jgk gwaxkA** 22. The relevant portion of statement of Triloki Nath, Fitter is as under : ^^2-7-88 dks 8-00 cts izkr% esa ml dk;Zkkyk esa Fkk lwjt izdkk gekjs ,l0,Q0 gS jke u{k= ¼orZeku tkap d{k½ esjs lg;ksxh fQVj gS ml fnu 8-00 cts izkr% Jh lwjt izdkk us jke u{k= ls dgk fd vki ogka vU;= dke djs rks jke u{k= us dgk fd ;gk lready ;gk dke dj jgk gwWa dksbZ ,slh ckr jke u{k= us ugha dgha ftlls Jh lwjt izdkk ,l0,Q0 dks Bsl igqaps vkSj jke u{k= u rks xqLls esa vkdj fcxMs u lwjt izdkk dks pys tkus dks dgk vkSj u ;gh dgk fd fyf[kr :i esa odZ ,ykVesUV ugha gksxkA** 23. It has been informed at the Bar that Ram Nakshatra (petitioner) died on 22.8.2007. In fact, Ram Nakshatra being workmen his case should be sent before the Labour Court on the ground of alternative remedy but as he is no more and since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, it will be in the interest of justice that his wife and legal heirs who have been substituted in his place be considered for the benefits for which Ram Nakshatra has filed this writ petition. 24. In the circumstances, it is apparent from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses that such incident had never taken place and Ram Nakshatra had not threatened anything untoward to Sri Suraj Prakash for any misconduct which he was charged. Even if some hot talks had taken place no abusive language or threat of dire consequences was given by Ram Nakshatra. In the circumstances, it is apparent from the statements of the aforesaid witnesses that such incident had never taken place and Ram Nakshatra had not threatened anything untoward to Sri Suraj Prakash for any misconduct which he was charged. Even if some hot talks had taken place no abusive language or threat of dire consequences was given by Ram Nakshatra. Sri Suraj Prakash had stated that the incident had taken place in presence of Sri R.S. Verma Senior Foreman but he appears not to have been produced as witness in the enquiry by Sri Lalta Prasad. Thus, it does not corroborate the evidence of Sri Suraj Prakash that incident had taken place in presence of Lalta Prasad. As regards the third witness Sri Triloki Nath is concerned, he in his evidence had stated before the enquiry officer that when Sri Ram Nakshatra was asked to go elsewhere he replied that I am already working here and that his tone was not to hurt any body. 25. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.1991 of removal of service of the petitioner is set aside. It is further directed that the respondents will pay Smt. Prema Devi wife of Late Ram Nakshatra (petitioner) who has been substituted in his place by order dated 5.9.2008 all the arrears of salary from the date of removal from service to the date of superannuation alongwith 5% simple interest. No order as to costs. ————