JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 26.2.2002 published on the Notice Board on 26.6.2002 passed by the Labour Court (I). U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 32/83.
2. Dharamveer Singh- respondent No. 1 was working as driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He was assigned the duty to drive bus No. U.S.C. 5323 on 19.8.1977. He was charged with the offence that he did not stop bus on signal given by the checking staff and the bus was stopped at Purkazi stoppage. He was further charged that he again started the bus and ran away in collusion with the conductor as a result whereof the bus could not be checked by the checking staff. He was placed under suspension and a charge sheet dated 27.10.1977, containing the following charges, was issued:-
** vki ij ,rnOnkjk fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxk, tkrs gSa %& 1& fnukad 18&5&77 dks vki }kjk pkfyr okgu la0 5323 fnYyh gfjOnkj dks tc cjyk dkyst in Jh ,l0 ih0 'kekZ] lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax ldzsM½ }kjk loZJh f'kojkt flag o lS;n dslj vCckl lgk;d ;krk;kr fujh{kd ds lkFk Loa; rFkk LVkQ dkj ls fujh{k.k gsrq jksdusa ds fy, ladsr fn;k rks vkius okgu dks ladsr in ugha jksdk cfYd ladsr ls [email protected] xt vkx ystkdj jksdkA T;ksagh fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh okgu rd igwWaps rks ifjpkyd us okgu dk njoktk ugha [kksyk o vkidks pyrs jgus ds fy, dgus ij vki okgu dks Hkxk dj ys x;s A vr% vki fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ladsr dh tkucw dj vogsyuk djus okgu esa fcuk fVdV ;k=h ifjpkyd ds lkFk feydj ys tkus ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj Qsykus ds nks"kh gS A lk{; tks nks"kkjksi.k dk leFkZu djrsa gSa ,osa ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS%& 1& lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax½ dh fjiksVZ fn0 22&8&77 ¼va'k izfrfyfi laxUu½ 2& lacf/kr ekxZ i= vkfn ¼bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk ij ns[ksa tk ldrs gS½ 2& vki okgu dks fujh{k.k ls cpkusa ds fufer cgqr gh rhoz xfr ls Hkxk dj ys x, ;gkW rd fd LVkQ djk }kjk pafdx LdosM us 100 fd0 eh0 izfr?kUVk dh xfr ls vkidh okgu dk ihNk fd;k x;k ,oa fujh{k.k gsrq jksdus ds fy, mls ikj ugha dj lds A vr% vki ;kf=;ksa dh lqj{kk ,oa okgu dh {kfr dh dksbZ ijokg u djrs gq, okgu dks fujh{k.k ls cpkus ds fy, vksoj LihM pykus ds nks"kh gSa A Lkk{; tks nks"kkjksi.k dk leFkZu djrs gS ,os ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS %& 1& lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax½ dh fjiksVZ fn0 22&5&77 ¼va'k izfrfyfi laxXu½ 3& mDr okgu dks vkius iqjdkth esa jksdk tgkW ij okgu lsa dqN ;k=h mrjs A T;ksagh fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa us LVkQ dkj dks vkidks okgus ls vkxs lkbM esa yxkdj fujh{k.k gsrq iqu% okgu dks jksdus dk iz;kl fd;k vFkkZr ladsr fn;k rFkk vkokt Hkh yxkbZ fdUrq vki iqu% okgu dks lQkbZ ls fudky dj Hkxk ys x, QyLo:I okgu dk fujh{k.k ugha gks ldk rFkk okgu esa cSBs fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa dks ugha idìk tk ldk A vr% vki foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa ds foijhr vkpj.k dj ckj ckj fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds iz;klksa dks foQy dj vuq'kklughurk rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj Qsykus ds ,oa ifjpkyd ds lkFk feydj fcuk fVdV ;k=h ys tkus ds nks"kh gSa A lk{; tks nks"kkjksi.k d; leFkZu djrs gS ,oa ftu ij fopkj gksuk gS %& 1& lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼psfdax½ dh fjiksVZ fn0 22&8&77 ¼va'k izfrfyfi laxXu½ 2& ekxZ i= la[;k [email protected] ¼bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSa½ vr% vki izR;sad vkjksi ds mRrj esa vius cpko esa viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 7&10&77 rd ;k blls iwoZ v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; essa miyC/k dj nsa A
3. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice together with the enquiry report holding the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. The petitioner was removed from service vide impugned order dated 31.1.1978 and appeal preferred by him against the order of removal was also rejected vide order dated 15.1.1979. Thereafter, the workman concerned moved a representation against the orders of removal dated 31.1.1978 and rejection of appeal dated 15.1.1979 which was also rejected by the General Manager (Personnel), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 22.9.1981.
4. Dharamveer Singh- respondent No. 1, the concerned workman thereafter raised; in industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Meerut for adjudication where it was registered is Adjudication Case No. 32/83. After exchange of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following seven additional issues:-
**1& D;k lsok;kstd }kjk dh xbZ tkWp U;k;laxr ,oa mi;qDr gS\ 2& D;k tkWp vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ n`f"kr gS\ 3& D;k Jfed dks izrkfMr fd;k x;k gSa\ 4& D;k nkfUMd izfr/kdkjh ds }kjk nqHkkZork ls dk;Z fd;k x;k gS\ 5& D;k Jfed vU;= ykHkdkjh ax ls dk;Zjr gS\ 6& D;k Jfed fdlh nqjkpj.k dk nks"kh gS\ 7& D;k vkjksi nkrk nUMnkrk o vuq'kklu izkf/kdkjh dks Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi i= nsus ,oa nUM nsus o ukSdjh ls fudkyus dk iwjh 'kfDr ,oa izkf/kdkj izkIr Fkk ;fn ugh arks izHkko \**
5. Additional issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were decided by the Labour Court together holding that no evidence, whatsoever, has been led on behalf of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation from which it can be proved that the driver had been given signal to stop the bus and that if the car of the checking squad was running at the speed of 100 kms per hour, it was not impossible for them to stop the bus as a governor was fitted in the bus to ensure that the bus is not overspeed. The Labor Court further found that neither copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman nor he was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the employers, in he enquiry proceedings. The Labour Court found that in fact the bus had been taken out from the workshop at 19.40 hours on the date of incident for plying as such it is not possible that the bus could have been on road at 19.10 hours and as such, as charges levelled against the respondent-workman could have been framed.
6. The Labour Court decided additional issue No. 1 against the employers holding that the enquiry against the workman was neither fair and proper nor employers were able to prove the charges begfore it. In regard to additional issue No. 2 it was held that the findings of the enqurity officer arc perverse. Additional issue No. 3 was decided holding that the workman was harassed for his trade union activities as he was a candidate for the post of President in the workders' union. The Additional Issue No. 6 was decided holding that the driver was not guilty of any misconduct.
7. With regard to additional issue No. 4, it was held that the appellate authority has not passed order due to any malice. As regards additional issue No. 5, it was held that the workman was not gainfully employed after termination of his services. Lastly the additional issue No. 7 was decided holding that once the Court has found that the enquiry was not fair and proper, this issue was no longer relevant for deciding the controversy.
8. In view of the above findings, the Labour Court held that the order of termiinatiion of the workman dated 31.1.1978 was not legal and justified. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the question of relief which could be granted to the workman concerned. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with 60% of back wages. Cost of Rs. 500/- was also imposed on the employers.
9. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse as they are against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry proceedings. He has vehemently urged that the workman himself had not cross examinied the witnesses and that the charges against him in the enquiry were fully established.
10. Sri Siddhartha, counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the finding of the Labour Court wherein the facts and circumstances have been discussed in detail and cases cited the parties were considered.
11. From perusal of the record it is not explained as to when the bus was in the workshop on 18.8.77 at 19.40 hours how it could be on the road fully loaded with passengers at 19.10 hours when the checking staff is said to have given signal to the driver to stop the bus. The workman had also submitted application requesting for summoning the relevant register of the workshop to establishe his case that in fact the bus had left the workshop at 19.40 hours. Hence the contention of counsel for the respondents that the working had been 'framed' and was not given opportunity in the domestic enquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case has force. In any case, the employers could have proved their action before the Labour Court. In this regard, a concrete finding has been recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the employers failed to prove that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and they also miserably failed to prove the charges.
12. There is no error in the impugned award rendered by the Labour Court much lessany error of law apparent on the face of record.
13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 4.9 2002 is vacated. The counsel for the parties state that the petitioner was reinstated in terms of the interim order dated 4.9.2002 and was paid the current wages. As such, the award shall not be implemented in toto and the balance amount of benefits under the award for which the workman is entitled shall be paid to him within two months from the date production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to cost.