Allahabad High CourtU.P.S.R.T.C. vs The Presiding Officer & Another on 25 January, 2010(Judgment reserved on 06.01.2010)
                                                      (Judgment delivered on 25.01.2010)


Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12889 of 2001

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,M.K. Mishra
               AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12894 of 2001

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,K.P. Agarwal,Miss Bhushra Mariyam,V.C.Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,M.K. Mishra,S.K. Mishra,Shyam Narain,Smt. Sarita
Jhingan,Sudhanshu Narain
               AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12896 of 2001

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,B.B. Paul,M.K. Mishra
               AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12897 of 2001

Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Rai,V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B. Mariyam,B.B. Paul,M.K. Mishra
               AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5461 of 2005

Petitioner :- Anwar Khan And Others
Respondent :- Labour Court And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ekta Singh Rathor
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.C. Dixit
               AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20407 of 2007

Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Shri Banwari Lal & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- V.C. Dixit
Respondent Counsel :- R.C. Maurya,D.B. Yadav,Sc




Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       First four writ petitions are directed against common

award dated 02.03.2000 given by Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, U.P. Agra in following adjudication cases,1all of 1993:(i)       238     (relating   to   workman   Anwar

               Khan, whose services were terminated on

               01.09.1989)(ii)      239     (relating to workman Chandrapal

               Singh, whose services were terminated on

               21.09.1989)(iii)     241     (relating to workman Banwari Lal

               S/o Sri Rameshwar Dayal, whose services

               were terminated on 11.09.1989)(iv)      242     (relating   to   workman   Umesh

               Chandra, whose services were terminated

               on 21.09.1989)

     The matters which were referred to the labour court

were as to whether the action of the petitioner-employer,

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.)

terminating the services of its aforesaid workmen on the

aforesaid dates was just and legal or not.

    The four workmen were employed as painter, motor

mechanic, and cleaner. The allegation against the2workmen was that they had obtained the employment by

producing forged certificates. The case of the workmen

was that no opportunity of hearing was provided to them

and no domestic enquiry was held in respect of the

charge. Criminal case was also lodged, which resulted in

acquittal of the workmen. It was further pleaded by the

employer U.P.S.R.T.C. that the workmen were on

probation period, hence for termination from service

within probation period, domestic enquiry was not

necessary. It was also asserted by the employer that the

I.T.I. certificates on the basis of which the workmen

obtained employment were found not to have been

issued by the I.T.I. concerned. The authenticity of the

certificates was got ascertained by the Principle of the

I.T.I. concerned.The employer U.P.S.R.T.C. clearly admitted that

neither any charge sheet was given to the workmen nor

any domestic enquiry was held. The labour court held

that even during probation period, services could not be

terminated on the ground of charge of misconduct3without holding domestic enquiry or serving charge sheet

upon the workmen. Accordingly, through the impugned

awards reinstatement without any back wages was

ordered.As far as fifth writ petition of Anwar Khan, Chandra

Pal and Banwari Lal is concerned, the same has been

filed against the same award, which has been

challenged through the first four writ petitions. The

grievance of the workmen is that they ought to have

been paid back wages.As a as sixth writ petition is concerned, it also

relates to similar award in respect of Banwari Lal son of

Rameshwar Dayal. The said award was given on

25.08.2006 by Presiding officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra

in Adjudication Case No.244 of 1993. It is also in the

same terms as the earlier award dated 02.03.2000

passed in the matter of other four workmen.

    All the five workmen were employed in May, 1989

after being selected through selection committee, which

also took relevant tests of the appointees. After passing4of the interim orders in these writ petitions (except fifth

one) all the workmen have been taken back in the

service. As far as direction for reinstatement given in

both the awards is concerned, I do not find any error

therein. Filing of forged certificates was foundation for

termination and not motive. Accordingly, grant of

opportunity    of   hearing    was    essential.   Employer

U.P.S.R.T.C. clearly admitted that neither any charge

sheet was served nor domestic enquiry was held.However, as far as fifth writ petition by the workmen

is concerned, it is also liable to be dismissed. The

workmen had worked for only four or five months. Their

certificates were under a cloud. They also did not prove

that they were not doing anything for gain after their

termination.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.1.2010
NLY5