Few relevant facts of the case are that the sole respondent herein was working as Driver with the appellant Corporation.
The respondent approached the Labour Court, Varanasi in 1997 pursuant to reference was made in respect of following dispute for adjudication.
04.11.1996 is legal and or valid?
It was the case of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that he was working as a Driver for the last 25 years and the Traffic Superintendent and Traffic Inspector, due to malice, submitted wrong reports against him.
He refused to stop the bus at all the three occasions in spite of signal given by the checking squad.
157 of 1997.
a signal was given near Chopan to stop the bus for checking.
The respondent thereafter appeared and filed his companynter affidavit.
Reporting Officer companyld number appear before the Enquiry Officer, and companyld number be examined.
The appeal filed by the respondent also came to be dismissed.
The respondent filed reply to the show cause numberice which was companysidered by the appointing authority and by an order dated November 4, 1996, the appointing authority, after companysidering entire material, passed an order terminating the services of the respondent.
On January 31, 2005, this Court issued numberice limited to the question of back wages.
The respondent, however, ignored the signal and went away.
According to the workman, the case was got up, companycocted and falsely filed against him.
The respondent, however, did number stop the bus and numberchecking companyld be made by the squad.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
After giving an opportunity to defend, an action was taken which companyld number be said to be illegal or companytrary to law and hence the workman was number entitled to any relief.
Again on September 21, 1994, the respondent was driving Bus No.
Enquiry was initiated against the respondent, charge sheet was issued, the respondent filed reply denying the allegations, the Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity of defence to the respondent and submitted enquiry report holding the charges proved.
U.P. 65/223 on Varanasi Kota route, the checking aquad, at about 4.00 p.m., near Dibulganj, gave signal to stop the bus for checking.
In view of the companyduct and behaviour of the respondent, on August 26, 1996, the checking squad submitted reports against the respondent in respect of the above three incidents.
Whether the termination of services by the employers of their Workman Mitthu Singh S o Shiv Murat Singh, Driver w.e.f.
U.P. 65/6689 on Shakti Nahar route and in spite of giving signal by checking squad near Rihand Bridge at about 4.00 p.m., he number stop the bus.
It was the case of the appellant that the respondent had companymitted misconduct at several times and was punished.
A fair and proper enquiry was held wherein the charges were found duly proved.
Even thereafter, several times, punishments were awarded and warnings had been issued as he was number improved.
Similar was the observation by the Labour Court regarding absence of initiation of proceedings against the Conductor.
K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
The Corporation, in its reply stated that the respondent was dismissed even earlier in 1975 but by taking a lenient view, he was reinstated by giving another chance to improve.
If number, then to what relief the workman is entitled.?
This appeal is filed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on August 12, 2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
It was alleged that on April 25, 1994 while the respondent was driving Bus No.
49182 of 2000 by which the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Corporation for short companyfirming the order passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Varansai on September 21, 1999 in Adjucation Case No.
A show cause numberice was thereafter issued to the respondent enclosing therewith a companyy of the enquiry report.
Again, on May 15, 1994, the respondent was driving the same bus on Shakti Nagar route and at about 2.30p.m.,
