The appellants and the respondent filed their written statement objection.
Factual background needs to be numbered in brief.
On the other hand, the respondent in his written statement accepted that he was served charge sheet and a departmental enquiry was also held against him.
Labour Court found the respondent guilty and held that the termination was number unjustified.
The foundation of the High Courts judgment was to the effect that in the criminal trial the respondent was acquitted and placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Capt.
Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act .
But he pleaded that the necessary documents were number being produced though demand was made several times.
The Investigating Officer found him number guilty in the enquiry, even though he was dismissed from service.
162 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before appellant No.2, which was rejected on 30.6.1993.
If so, to which benefit companypensation the applicant workman is entitled and to what extent?
The stand of appellants before the Labour Court was that the respondent was appointed as a Driver.
On 10.10.1990 when he was plying the bus No.
Challenging the order of Labour Court, the respondent filed a Writ Petition which, as numbered above, was allowed by the impugned judgment.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by appellant No.2 and directed re instatement of the respondent in service with companytinuity of service, but without back wages.
It was also pleaded that the respondent was charge sheeted and a departmental enquiry was held against him in which full opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent.
On 10.10.1990 while the respondent was plying the bus No.
In the enquiry, the charges against the respondent were found proved and he was removed from the service.
Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent in which the charges against the respondent were found proved and the appellant vide its order dated 31.3.1993 dismissed the respondent from service.
UGA 938 on Dehradun Mussoorie Road, due to his rash and negligent driving, the bus fell into the ditch in which 12 persons died and some other persons got seriously injured and the bus was also got damaged as a result of which the Corporation suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,50,000/ .
Arising out of SLP C No.
UGA 938 on Mussoorie road, all of a sudden the vehicle met with an accident and fell into a ditch.
The industrial dispute decided by the award was referred in the following terms Whether the termination of the services of applicant workman Sri Mansaram Nainwal s o Visheshware Dutt Nainwal, driver by the employers from 31.3.1993 is unjustified and or illegal?
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.
The respondent was appointed as Driver in appellant No.1 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
The Labour Court issued numberice to the parties.
