Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1040 (ALL)

U. P. S. R. T. C. v. GOPAL SINGH

2014-04-01

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Singh holding brief of Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri B.K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case is that the respondent No. 1 was a daily wage conductor who was disengaged on certain charges after due enquiry and after due opportunity in accordance with law. 3. Two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioners, namely, dated 23rd April, 1977 and 23rd September, 1988 which have been filed as Anenxure No. 1 and 2. Enquiry was held. Thereafter order was passed holding the respondent No. 1 to be guilty and directing his name to be deleted from the waiting list of daily wage conductor. 4. Aggrieved with this order the respondent No. 1 has filed an appeal before the departmental authority which was rejected on 11th December, 1990. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute and reference was made on 19.11.2001. By the impugned order dated 21st June, 2013 award was passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to reinstate the services of respondent No. 1 as daily wager since 12th February, 1990 and to pay back wages. Aggrieved with this award the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. The industrial dispute referred by the State Government is as under : ^^D;k lsok ;kstdksa }kjk vius fookfnr Jfed Jh xksiky flag iq= Jh yYyw flag in ifjpkyd &nSfud osru Hkksxh& dh lsok;sa fnukad 12-3-1990 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr@oS|kfud gS ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ,oa vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdu fooj.k lfgrA** 6. Submission of Sri Samir Sharma is that there were several charges levelled against the respondent No. I and were found proved. The respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned award, although briefly noted the second and third charges with regard to incidence which took place on 13.6.1986 and 30.4.1987 but neither recorded any finding on those charges nor set aside the same yet passed the award in favour of the respondent No. 1. He submits that even the other charges have been set aside without consideration to the evidence on record and merely relying upon the statement of the respondent No. 1. He submits that even the other charges have been set aside without consideration to the evidence on record and merely relying upon the statement of the respondent No. 1. He submits that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, 2003 SCC 450, has been relied by the respondent No. 2 in the impugned award but there is no whisper as to how this judgment is applicable on the facts of the present case. He submits that the oral evidence of the petitioners have been noted and has not been disbelieved or rejected and yet the award has been given in favour of the respondent No. 1. He submits that enquiry report has been held to be partial merely on the ground that no Presenting Officer for representing the department was appointed by the petitioners before the enquiry officer. He submits that this does not prejudice the case of the petitioners. Moreover, the entire evidences were filed before the Labour Court, and therefore, the Labour Court should have decided the adjudication case after considering the evidences both oral and documentary as available on record. He submits that in view of these facts, the impugned award is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the findings recorded therein are perverse. 7. Sri Sanjeev Singh submits that the enquiry report was found to be improper and invalid by the labour Court and finding in this regard has been recorded which is finding of facts and cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inida. He submits that the respondent No. 2 has considered the facts of the case and correctly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Mishra (supra). He submits that the charges with regard to manipulation have been correctly found by the respondent No. 2 to be not proved against the respondent No. 1. The findings recorded in this regard of finding of facts. He submits that the impugned order is wholly just and proper, and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Perusal of the impugned award shows that proceeding was initiated against the respondent No. 1 on several charges as contained in the charge-sheet which according to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 were three in number. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Perusal of the impugned award shows that proceeding was initiated against the respondent No. 1 on several charges as contained in the charge-sheet which according to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 were three in number. The respondent No. 2 briefly noted the charges in the impugned award but did not record any finding on the charges relating to incident dated 13th June, 1986 and 13th April, 1987. It is also noticed that the oral evidences of the petitioners have been noted but the same have not been considered. Non-consideration of the important pieces of evidences and non-recording of any finding on the charges which were found proved in the disciplinary proceedings and upheld by the appellate authority, renders the impugned award to be unsustainable. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned award dated 21st June, 2013 passed in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to decide the Adjudication Case No. 01 of 2002 afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed. It is further directed that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 shall not take any unnecessary adjournment and shall cooperate in the proceedings. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 11. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. —————