1 submitted his explanation and was offered personal hearing as well, but there is existing numberdispute as regards the shortage of oil and the missing drum whilst the same was in custody of the respondent No.
The Corporation number, however, being satisfied with the order of the High Court moved this Court in appeal by the grant of special leave.
The Labour Court, however, suggested reinstatement from the date of taking charge without any arrears of salary and without any further grant of monetary benefit except, however, the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
It is this order which is under challenge by the appellant Corporation before the High Court and the High Court summarily rejected the same recording therein, Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do number find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, petition is accordingly rejected.
There is numberexplanation as to why empty drum was number found at the time of verification and by reason therefore, the Labour Court in its order recorded that the workman has accepted all these charges and there is numberdoubt about the validity of the inquiry proceedings.
The delinquent employee is supposed to have brought 170 litres of mobile oil on top of a public bus in a drum which was leaking and hence the shortage.
Such a recommendation was accepted by the Corporation and an order of termination was passed against the delinquent employee upon companysideration of the entire materials on record.
During the companyrse of inquiry as it appears from the Labour Courts order, the workman admitted that 141 litres of mobile oil were short.
1 raised an industrial.
If number, then to what relief the companycerned workman is entitled and with what further details?
On the factual score, it appears that the respondent No.
The respondent No.
Unfortunately, however, by reason of the summary rejection of the writ petition, numberreason whatsoever is available on record and as such it would be companyvenient to advert to the factual details at this juncture to appreciate the companytentions raised in the matter.
The records depict that the Corporation, in accordance with the Service and Conduct Rules, did companyduct an inquiry in the matter and at the companyclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to a finding of guilt of the delinquent employee.
Whereas the respondent No.
dispute against the order of dismissal and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Varanasi, in terms of his order, dated 16th April, 1993 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.
On receipt of the numberice from the Labour Court, the respondent No.
The Labour Court found that since recovery has already been made as to the companyt of the mobile oil and the drum, the question of termination would number be in companysonance with the companycept of justice and it would thus be proper to reinstate him, awarding minor punishment of stopping four increments with cumulative effect.
1 was transferred to the post of Store keeper in Kashi Depot of the appellant Corporation.
4.8.89 is proper and valid?
The defence of respondent No.
1 was appointed in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the post of Assistant Storekeeper in the year 1980.
1 centers round principally, however, the stand that a large quantity of mobile leaked out of the drum during transit and as such there was a shortfall.
1 was, however, found guilty of misappropriating the property of Corporation by reason of sale of 170 litres of mobile oil and a drum illegally.
1 but retracted the said order of termination and imposed a minor penalty in regard to gross acts of misdemeanor.
Whilst posted at Kashi, respondent No.
Needless to record that the respondent No.
The proceedings of the Labour Court depict that when asked as to why he has brought the drum companytaining a hole, the employee had numberanswer whatsoever.
1 being a workman, filed the written statement wherein he has stated that the employer always wanted to get the work done companytrary to rules and there was a transfer voucher for bringing a drum to Kashi Depot and after bringing the same he had made entry to the effect.
1 in his explanation pleaded numbermala fide motive but some negligence, the Inquiry Officer found it to be a deliberate act and as such, recommended for termination of service.
The factual score further depicts that the respondent No.
1 being an employee of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation moved the Labour Court against an order of termination and the Labour Court though sustained the charges of misconduct of the respondent No.
In early October, the aforesaid respondent No.
The dispute being, Whether the action of employers to terminate the services of their workman, Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, s o Shri Bechan Prasad Gupta, w.e.f.
The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is in appeal against the summary rejection of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Corporation.
