Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1926 (ALL)

U. P. S. R. T. C. v. Hari Shankar Verma

2024-08-23

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/1 to 1/4. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of Conductor in the petitioner/Corporation in the year 1980. On 12-11-1988, respondent No. 1 was driving bus number USY-8753 on Khurja-Haridwar route. The bus was checked and 12 passengers were alleged to be found traveling without ticket and in the checking made on 25-03-1989 in the aforementioned bus and 4 passengers were again alleged to be found traveling without ticket. In disciplinary proceeding, charge sheet was issued to respondent No.1 and reply was submitted by respondent No.1. The Disciplinary Authority/ Regional Manager vide order dated 14-04-1991 passed the order of removal of service of respondent No.1. An industrial dispute raised by respondent No.1 was referred for adjudication vide reference order dated 23-08-1993 as to whether the order of removal of service of respondent No.1/Hari Shankar Verma Conductor dated 11-04-1991 is just and legal. The aforementioned reference was registered as Adjudication Case No.462 of 1993 before Labour Court (Ist) Uttar Pradesh Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad. Petitioner/ employer and respondent No.1 filed their written statement as well as oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. Vide award dated 1-12-2006 as published on 23-02-2007 reinstated the respondent No.1 in service with 50% of back wages and other allowances from the date of dismissal of service upto date of reinstatement in service withholding two annual increments permanently. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief. "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award/judgment and order dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) in Adjudication Case No.462 of 1993 passed by labour CourtI Ghaziabad." 3. This court vide interim order dated 26-07-2007 entertained the matter and stayed the execution of the impugned award dated 1-12-2006 provided petitioner ensure compliance of section 17-B of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act. 4. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 1/Hari Shankar Verma has expired on 3-9-2015 accordingly, two sons, widow and a daughter have been substituted as respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 respectively in the writ petition. 5. 4. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 1/Hari Shankar Verma has expired on 3-9-2015 accordingly, two sons, widow and a daughter have been substituted as respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 respectively in the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit along with application for vacation of interim order was filed on behalf of respondent No.1/1 to 1/4 to the writ petition stating specifically in paragraph No. 21 of the counter affidavit that deceased respondent No.1 has filed an application for his joining in the corporation in pursuance of the impugned award of labour court as well as interim order dated 26-07-2007 passed by this court in the instant writ petition. The copy of application for joining filed by deceased-respondent No.1 before employer along with affidavit stating that deceased-respondent No.1 was not in any employment is annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 2-12-2015. 6. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner to the counter affidavit dated 2-12-2015. 7. This court dismissed the instant writ petition for non-prosecution on 25-10-2017 but on restoration application of the petitioner the order dated 25-10-2017 was recalled vide order dated 27-05-2019. 8. This court on 23-02-2021 passed another order which runs as follows. "This Court while entertaining the petition on 26.7.2007 has passed the following order: "Petitioner is permitted to implead Labour Court-I, Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad through Presiding Officer as respondent no.2 during the course of the day. Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent no.2 Sri D.C. Srivastava, Advocaate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. They pray for and are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter. List on 18th September, 2007. It is contended that the workman was employed as Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad and on two occasions he was caught carrying bus with passengers, who were travelling without ticket. After departmental proceedings, his service were brought to an end. Orders passed by the employers in that regard have been set aside under the impugned award on hyper technical ground without referring to departmental proceedings, and were pleaded before the Labour Court. Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order. After departmental proceedings, his service were brought to an end. Orders passed by the employers in that regard have been set aside under the impugned award on hyper technical ground without referring to departmental proceedings, and were pleaded before the Labour Court. Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order. Till the next date of listing execution of the impugned award dated 1st December, 2006 passed in Adjudication Case No.462 of 1993 shall remain stayed provided the petitioner to ensure compliance of Section 17-B of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act." Nothing has been brought on record as to whether Section 17-B of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act has been complied with by the petitioner or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks time to file affidavit regarding compliance of the order of this Court. List this case on 24.3.2021 to enable Regional Manager, UPSRTC to file an affidavit showing compliance of Section 17-B of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. It is made clear that in the event of non compliance of the order dated 26.7.2007, the Court would take serious view of the matter. List this case on 18.3.2021." 9. In pursuance of the order dated 23-2-2021, petitioner/Employer filed a Civil Miscellaneous Modification Application No. 14 of 2021 dated 18-03-2021 for modification of the interim order dated 26-07-2007 as well as affidavit of compliance of the order dated 23-02-2021. Respondent No. 1/1 to 1/4 have filed their counter affidavit to the modification application as well as compliance affidavit filed by petitioner/Employer. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Corporation submitted that respondent No.1 was habitual in carrying the passenger without ticket but Labour Court has illegally ordered for reinstatement with 50% of back wages. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 was held guilty in the disciplinary proceeding for carrying passengers without ticket but Labour Court has illegally held that Respondent No. 1 is to be reinstated in service. He further submitted that Labour Court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in support of their cases. He placed following two judgments passed by this Court in support of his argument. 1. Writ C No. 32426 of 2019 Tufani Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others with Writ C No. 15450 of 2019 M/S Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. He placed following two judgments passed by this Court in support of his argument. 1. Writ C No. 32426 of 2019 Tufani Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others with Writ C No. 15450 of 2019 M/S Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others Judgment dated 18-01-2024 2. Writ Petition No. 6444 of 2010 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Mohan Singh and others Judgment dated 17-05-2023. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/1 to 1/4 submitted that respondent No. 1 was performing his duty as conductor in the Uttar Pradesh Roadways since 1980. He submitted that domestic inquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 1 in illegal and arbitrary manner accordingly, punishment imposed against the respondent No. 1 was also illegal. He submitted that Labour Court has rightly exercised his jurisdiction for reinstatement in service with 50% of back wages, withholding two annual increments permanently. He submitted that in spite of the conditional interim order of this Court, petitioner has not reinstated the respondent No.1 since 26-07-2007 and respondent No.1 has expired also on 3-09-2015, as such writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed with costs. He further submitted that deceased-respondent No. 1 tried his best for joining in pursuance of the impugned award but petitioner have not reinstated the deceased-respondent No. 1 in spite of the interim order passed by this Court in the instant petition filed by petitioner himself. He submitted that Labour Court has passed the impugned award in just and proper manner, as such there is no illegality in the impugned award even on merit. 12. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. There is no dispute about the fact that Labour Court vide impugned award reinstated the respondent No. 1 in service with 50% of back wages and other allowances from the date of dismissal of service upto the date of reinstatement in service withholding two annual increments permanently. There is also no dispute about the fact that this Court has passed the conditional interim order dated 26-07-2007 but petitioner has not reinstated the respondent No. 1 who ultimately expired on 3-09-2015. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed modification application on 18-03-2021 in respect to the interim order dated 26-07-2007 and 23-02-2021. There is also no dispute about the fact that this Court has passed the conditional interim order dated 26-07-2007 but petitioner has not reinstated the respondent No. 1 who ultimately expired on 3-09-2015. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed modification application on 18-03-2021 in respect to the interim order dated 26-07-2007 and 23-02-2021. 14. The perusal of the relevant finding of fact recorded by Labour Court while passing the impugned award will be necessary which is as under : 15. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court as quoted above fully demonstrate that there is no illegality in the impugned award. 16. It is also material that in spite of the interim order dated 26-07-2007 passed by this Court in the instant petition filed by petitioner themselves, the petitioner has not reinstated the respondent No. 1 in service and respondent No. 1 has expired on 3-9-2015, as such, writ petition filed by petitioner is also liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the condition mentioned in the interim order. Mere quotation of wrong provision of interim order will not make the interim order redundant. Hon. Apex Court in case reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 Prestige Ltd. v. State Bank of India has held that an order passed by competent court, interim or final, has to be abided without any reservation and if such order is violated, the Court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merit. 17. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to the effect that respondent No. 1 was not reinstated in service in spite of the interim order dated 26-07-2007 passed in the instant petition and ultimately respondent No. 1 has expired on 3-09-2015, the writ petition is dismissed with following direction : (i). Petitioner shall release the arrears of 50% of back wages of deceased-respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1/ 1 to 1/ 4 from the date of termination (11-04-1991) to the date of passing of interim order dated 26-07-2007 within period of two months from today. (ii). Petitioner shall release the arrears of full wages of deceased-respondent No. 1 from the date of passing of interim order dated 26-07-2007 till the date of his death (3-09-2015) within period of 3 months from today. (iii). (ii). Petitioner shall release the arrears of full wages of deceased-respondent No. 1 from the date of passing of interim order dated 26-07-2007 till the date of his death (3-09-2015) within period of 3 months from today. (iii). In case of non-payment of arrears of wages in aforementioned period, the petitioner shall pay interest to the respondent Nos. 1/1 to1/4 at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforementioned amount. 18. No order as to costs.