Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 15.09.2005 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court IV U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.64 of 2003. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer respondent No.2 U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager, Kanpur terminating the services of its workman petitioner conductor through orders dated 31.01.1997, 01.12.1997 and 29.04.1999 was just and valid or not? The dispute was raised in 2002 (C.P. Case No.643 of 2002). The allegation against the petitioner was that on 08.06.1991 he was found carrying 20 passengers without ticket out of whom 12 were sitting at the roof of the bus which was a safety hazard. Services were terminated after holding domestic enquiry. Labour court held that the termination was valid.
The defence of the petitioner was that when the bus in which he was performing the duty reached the Rania Police Chauki, the police officials got the bus stopped and told him that a truck bearing No.U.P.80-9120 had caused an accident at a nearby place and had run away and there were 20 passengers in the truck hence he must take those 20 passengers; accordingly, he was forced to accommodate those 20 passengers without charging any fair from them and as there was not much space in the bus, hence 12 passengers were accommodated on the roof of the bus. The labour court held that whatever might be the situation the petitioner should have charged fare from those 20 passengers. Labour court also held that in order to prove the accident, the petitioner should have filed copy of FIR which might have been lodged against the driver of the truck or should have examined the Daroga (S.I.) who asked him to take 20 passengers. The labour court did not specifically disbelieve the version of the petitioner that accident had taken place and that S.I. had asked him to take 20 passengers.
Along with supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.04.2011, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed copy of the enquiry report as Annexure SCA-3 to the said affidavit. In the enquiry report, it is clearly mentioned towards its end that from the perusal of the police report which had been filed before the inquiry officer this much was clear that the passengers of the truck (which had caused the accident and thereafter, driver had run away) boarded the bus and police report substantiated the number of the passengers (which were in the truck and which on the direction of the police authorities were accommodated by the petitioner in the bus which he was carrying.) I am of the opinion that technically the inquiry officer, the employer and the Presiding Officer of the labour court were correct in holding that judged by the highest standard of the duty, petitioner should have charged fare from those 20 passengers, however ground situation in case of emergency like accident is quite different. Normal rules and regulations in such situations are often not followed and such violation cannot be judged by the same standard which is applied for violation of the rules in normal situations. It is human conduct that in case of emergencies, such things which cannot be done in normal course are done by impulse. It is common sight that if an accident takes place, even general public gathers at the site and after stopping any vehicle asks the driver of the said vehicle to take the injured persons to the hospital. Such behaviour is quite normal and instead of being condemned it requires to be appreciated.
Accordingly, in my opinion it was a fit case where the employer should have awarded either no punishment or lesser punishment than termination. Similarly the labour court should also have exercised its powers under Section 6(2-A) U.P.I.D. Act equivalent to Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act. Instead of sending back the matter to the labour court and asking the petitioner to undergo another tortuous round of litigation, I suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case he agreed, matter could be finalized immediately by directing reinstatement without any back wages. Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner showing great sense of reasonableness and understanding of the courts' affairs agreed for the same.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner latest by 01.06.2011 on which date petitioner shall appear before his appointing authority. Termination order is set aside and petitioner shall be treated to be in continuous service for all other purposes except for payment of salary since the date of termination till the date of joining or 01.06.2011 whichever is earlier. If petitioner was suspended before termination then apart from suspension allowance no further amount shall be payable to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 13.5.2011 NLY