Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31216 of 2004 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And Another Respondent :- Rajendra Nath Mishra And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash,Amit Monohar,Anuj Srivastava,Manu Ghil Goyal,Anuj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Mishra,Sanjay Misra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
Although the respondent workman is duly represented none has appeared on his behalf.
This petition impugns an award rendered by the Labour Court in a reference made with respect to the validity of an order of termination dated 10 May 1999 in favour of the respondent No. 1. The Labour Court in terms of the award has directed reinstatement together with all consequential benefits.
The dispute itself related to an incident where a bus of the Corporation which was on its way to the workshop for auction was found standing on the roadside and certain materials being loaded onto it. The respondent No. 1 was the Mechanic incharge in the Corporation. On being apprehended by an official of the Corporation who saw the items being loaded onto the bus, no plausible explanation could be given by the respondent workman. Consequently proceedings were initiated in which an order of termination came to be passed. On reference, a preliminary issue with respect to the validity of the domestic enquiry was framed. Finding that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was defective, parties were granted opportunity to lead further evidence before the Labour Court itself. After the recordal of evidence and on a consideration of the material on record, the Labour Court came to conclude that the charge of attempted theft as levelled against the respondent workman was not established. It also took note of the fact that the items in question were duly accounted for when the bus reached its destination.
The Court additionally notes that no material was led by the petitioners to establish that the items in question were loaded onto the bus by the respondent No. 1 and not by any other employee of the Corporation or even the Driver of the bus. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 LA/-