Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 257 (ALL)

Lahari Singh v. Labour Court Ghaziabad

2022-02-25

AJAY BHANOT

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramanuj Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. 2. Domestic enquiry proceedings were taken out against the petitioner on two charges (the chargesheet is not part of the record). The substance of the charges as enumerated in the impugned award of the labour court is extracted thus: On 08.03.1990 the petitioner was taking a UPSRTC bus from Khurja to Aligarh. The petitioner was driver of the bus while Dinesh Kumar was the conductor. Enroute an investigation team boarded the bus and found that 21 passengers were without tickets. The way bill did not contain any details of 15 passengers who had boarded the bus between Khurja and Aligarh. The petitioner and the conductor Dinesh Kumar created impediments in the investigation by inciting the passengers. The petitioner as well as the conductor declined to put their signatures to the way bill and the inspectors encountered difficulties in making entries in the way bill. 3. The second charge against the petitioner is this. On 08.03.1990 the scheduled distance of the bus journey was 306 kms. However the petitioner and the conductor travelled a distance of only 26 kms. causing financial loss to the UPSRTC. 4. The domestic enquiry officer submitted his report on 12.04.1991. The enquiry officer found credence in the defence of the petitioner that the conductor and not the petitioner was responsible for issuance of tickets to the passengers. On this footing the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the charge of permitting ticket less passengers in the bus. However in regard to creating impediments in the conduct of the investigation the petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. The inspecting team members testified that the petitioner had instigated the passengers and the team members had to flee for their lives. The petitioner prevented the inspection team from completing the investigation against him and the conductor. The enquiry officer believed the testimonies of the members of the inspecting team and indicted the petitioner. 5. As regards the second charge the defence of the petitioner was that the conductor had taken ill during the course of journey and was not medically fit to travel any further. The medical certificate of the conductor Dinesh Kumar was proved before the enquiry officer. The stand of the petitioner was also corroborated by Dinesh Kumar. 5. As regards the second charge the defence of the petitioner was that the conductor had taken ill during the course of journey and was not medically fit to travel any further. The medical certificate of the conductor Dinesh Kumar was proved before the enquiry officer. The stand of the petitioner was also corroborated by Dinesh Kumar. DW1, Lahari Singh testified before the enquiry officer that he had got the conductor admitted to a hospital, and also provided the supporting medical certificate. These facts were also stated in the duty slip, which was marked as exhibit3 and duly proved before the enquiry officer. DW2 Vedpal who accompanied the petitioner to the depot, deposed that he had taken the conductor to the doctor. DW3 Ali Sher, chowkidar testified that Vedpal and the petitioner arrived together at the bus stop in the bus. The medical condition of the conductor Dinesh Kumar was duly intimated to the competent authority through one Udaiveer Singh. However, the authorities failed to send a relieving conductor. In the absence of conductor the bus could not continue its onward journey to the final destination. The enquiry report found that the credibility of the said witnesses could not be impeached by the employer during the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer on the aforesaid material concluded that the second charge against the petitioner that he had caused financial loss to the Corporation was not proved. The petitioner was exonerated on this score. 6. Upon submission of the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner tendered his reply to the notice which was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 17.09.1991. 7. An industrial reference was made in regard to the validity of the termination of the petitioner by the order dated 17.09.1991. The labour court adjudicated the aforesaid reference and passed the impugned award dated 02.12.2006 upholding the termination of the petitioner. The labour court in the award recorded the fact that the petitioner was working as a temporary driver in the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 1976 till his termination in the year 1991. After noticing the charges laid out against the petitioner the labour court entered upon a consideration of the controversy on merits. The labour court in the award recorded the fact that the petitioner was working as a temporary driver in the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 1976 till his termination in the year 1991. After noticing the charges laid out against the petitioner the labour court entered upon a consideration of the controversy on merits. The labour court found that the enquiry was conducted in consonance of principles of natural justice and no procedural impropriety therein could be established. 8. The following witnesses appeared before the labour court on behalf of the parties. The petitioner appeared as DW1. On behalf of the employer Jaiveer Singh as appeared as EW1, H.N. Kaushik has appeared as EW2, Ashutosh Gaur as EW3 and Sri Rajendra Singh Solanki as EW4. The domestic enquiry report discussed earlier was introduced as evidence by the employer. 9. The labour court in the impugned award has affirmed the indictment on charge no. 1 though not in a detailed manner. It is noteworthy that the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the part of charge no. 1 which was of instigating the passengers against the inspection team and threatening their lives and preventing them from discharging their duties. The domestic enquiry found that applicant impeded the inspection team and precluded them from completing the enquiry. The inspection team escaped with their lives after being threatened by the passengers instigated by the petitioner. The aforesaid finding was based on materials in the record and supported by reasons. There is no infirmity in the aforesaid finding. No material to establish illegality in the said finding of the domestic enquiry was referred to this Court either from the impugned award or the record of the case. The said finding by the domestic enquiry officer remains unrebutted and has to be upheld. 10. As regards the second charge laid out against the petitioner of causing loss to the Corporation, the petitioner had clearly deposed before the labour court that he could not traverse the entire route as the conductor Dinesh Kumar had fallen ill during the course of journey. No relieving conductor was sent by the employer despite communication having been sent to the depot. The health condition of conductor Dinesh Kumar was communicated to the competent authority by the petitioner through Udaiveer. No relieving conductor was sent by the employer despite communication having been sent to the depot. The health condition of conductor Dinesh Kumar was communicated to the competent authority by the petitioner through Udaiveer. The witness who had appeared on behalf of the employer testified before the labour court that the petitioner had informed him that the conductor of his bus had fallen ill. 11. The report of B. P. Singh, Senior Station Master marked as Exh. 26 contains a recital that the petitioner and the conductor were required to traverse 306 KM. from Khurja Aligarh to Delhi. The conductor and the driver only traversed 26 KM and abandoned the vehicle. There was no technical fault in the vehicle. The petitioner and the conductor were responsible for causing financial loss to the Corporation. The labour court relying only upon the report of B.P. Singh concluded that the second charge stood established by evidence. Finding for the employer it was held that both the charges laid out against the petitioner stood proved and declined to interfere in the punishment of dismissal. 12. The labour court in the impugned award failed to consider the evidences of the petitioner, the employer witness Vedpal who had deposed regarding the illness of the conductor and failure of the authorities to send a reliever. 13. The labour court in the impugned award also neglected to consider the findings of the enquiry report. The labourt court did not call relevant witnesses while enquiring into charge no. 2. The findings of the enquiry officer as discussed earlier exonerated the petitioner from charge no. 2 were based upon fair consideration of evidences. 14. Labour court in the impugned award did not advert to the aforesaid facts and evidences. The labour court while entering the impugned award did not reverse the findings of the enquiry officer. 15. In the opinion of this Court domestic enquiry findings were reasonable and made upon due consideration of the evidences in the record. The labour court clearly erred in law by neglecting to consider such vital piece of evidences. 16. The labour court is enjoined by law to consider the domestic enquiry and cannot overlook the findings returned in such enquiry. The labour court was under an obligation of law to determine the validity and findings of the domestic enquiry on their merits. The labour court clearly erred in law by neglecting to consider such vital piece of evidences. 16. The labour court is enjoined by law to consider the domestic enquiry and cannot overlook the findings returned in such enquiry. The labour court was under an obligation of law to determine the validity and findings of the domestic enquiry on their merits. The labour court was also enjoined by law to reverse findings of the domestic enquiry which according to it are vitiated. Further it was required (to call for evidence if required) and enter independent findings on the relevant issues. 17. This Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs State of U.P. and others, (Writ C No. 6374 of 2021) while examining the importance of a domestic enquiry held it was imperative for the labour court to make an objective consideration of the domestic enquiry and return findings in that regard: “The labour court in the impugned award has neglected to return a finding on the third charge namely continuous absence from duty with effect from 18.01.2004 onwards. This absence was proved and found to be wilful in the domestic enquiry proceedings. Since no contrary finding has been recorded in the impugned award, the domestic enquiry report in regard to the same has to be given effect to. Secondly, the labour court has not examined some relevant findings returned by the domestic enquiry, and has not reversed the said findings. Domestic enquiries have a critical role to play in industrial relations. Domestic enquiries cannot be given a short shift or completely ignored by the labour court as was done in this case. This failure of the labour court is sufficient to vitiate the impugned award.” 18. The labour court award is arbitrary, illegal and vitiated. The award passed by the labour court dated 02.12.2006 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 19. The findings of the domestic enquiry are upheld. 20. Admittedly from the material in the record the first charge against the petitioner stands established. The charge is of a serious nature. The petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1991. The labour court award was passed on 02.12.2006. No purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the authorities and sending the parties into another orbit of litigation. The charge is of a serious nature. The petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1991. The labour court award was passed on 02.12.2006. No purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the authorities and sending the parties into another orbit of litigation. Interests of justice will be served by deciding the matter finally and bring the controversy to a litigative rest. The petitioner has long superannuated from service, relief of reinstatement in service cannot be granted at this stage. In view of the indictment of the petitioner on the first charge, which is a major misconduct, the petitioner cannot get away scot free. The appropriate relief in this case would be to grant 40% backwages to the petitioner. However all other terminal dues shall be paid without deduction. 21. The Managing Director, UPSRTC, is commanded to ensure that the aforesaid benefits is disbursed to the petitioner or his legal heirs within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 22. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.