Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri Ram Bahadur and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25886 of 2020 Uttar Pradesh State road Transport Corporation …..Petitioner(s) Versus Sri Ram Bahadur and another …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Sunil Kumar Misra, U.S. Singh Visen Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jamal Ahmad Khan Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶1Heard Sri Ayush Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

¶2Petitioner-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has filed present writ petition being aggrieved by award dated

19.02.2020 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra whereby a reference that, whether service of contesting-respondent terminated vide order dated 29.09.2012 was legally valid or not, was considered and allowed and it was held that order of termination was bad in law and it was directed that workman will be entitled for reinstatement with entire back wages.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that domestic inquiry was fair, it has exceeded its jurisdiction by considering evidence on record to the extent that termination was absolutely irregular and illegal and without taking note that there was no affidavit on record, whether or not contesting-respondent was gainfully employed between the period when proceedings were pending, i.e., between 2014 to 2020, i.e., for 6 years as well as that reference was made after more than two years.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for contesting-respondent submits that even after Labour Court has come to conclusion that domestic inquiry was fair, it can consider whether evidence led during domestic inquiry was sufficient or not to prove charges and same exercise was undertaken by Labour Court. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Prabhu Dayal and another, 2021:AHC:126104.

¶5I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

¶6In the present case, this Court has passed following interim order on 06.01.2021: "Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Controversy involved in this case is on account of absence of employee - respondent no.1 from duty, therefore, his services were terminated and the same has been put to challenge  by the petitioner - UPSRTC on several counts. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on expiry of the aforesaid period. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by respondent no.2, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra, in Case No.31 of 2014 shall remain stayed provided the petitioner - UPSRTC deposits 40% of the entire amount of the back wages in the bank account of respondent no.1, which shall be subject to final outcome of the instant petition."

¶7It is informed that in pursuance of above interim order, 40% of entire amount of back wages has already been deposited which is around Rs. 9 lacs.

¶8Contesting-respondent has declared his age in February, 2022 about 57 years, therefore, he has already crossed age of superannuation. Accordingly, even if the award is held to be justified, contesting-respondent cannot be re-appointed and the only relief which could be granted to contesting-respondent would a one time lump sum compensation and for that the Court takes note that contesting-respondent has worked from 1989 to 2012 as a Driver with petitioner.

¶9So far as merit is concerned, Court finds that in view of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. vs. Management and others, 1973(1) SCC 813, the Tribunal was justified to consider the evidence on record, whether misconduct and punishment granted were justified on basis of material on record.

¶10I have carefully perused the impugned award and relevant part of it is mentioned hereinafter: "16.

साक्ष्योंसेयहभीसुस्पष्टहैकि वादीचालककोवाहनसंचालनकेलिएड्यूटी

इसलिएनहींदीगयी,

क्योंकि चिकित्सकद्वाराउसेवाहनचलानेकेलिएअयोग्यघोषित

करदियाथा।इसतथ्यसेविभागकेअधिकारीपरिचितथे,

लेकिनवादीअन्यकिसी

ड्यूटीकीमांगकरतारहा,

जिसेदेनेकाअधिकारविभागकोथा।वादीअपनीड्यूटी,

आंखोंकीगम्भीरबीमारीकेकारण,

इलाजमेंव्यस्तहोनेतथाविभागद्वाराउसेइलाजके

बादड्यूटीदेनेकेआश्वासनकेकारणनहींकरसका,

इसकीउचितसूचनाउसकेद्वारा

अपनेअधिकारियोंकोदीजातीरही।दूसरातथ्यकि वाहनसंचालनमेंचिकित्सीयरूपसे

अयोग्यहोजानेकेकारणउसेड्यूटीनहींदीगयी।इसकेलिएवादीजिम्मेदारनहींमाना

जासकता।अनुचितअनुपस्थि ति अकारणमानीजासकतीहै,

लेकिनससाक्ष्यसकारण

अनुपस्थि ति कोईआरोपनहींहै।वादीपरलगायागयाआरोपअनुचितएवंकर्मचारी

नियमावलीकेनियमोंकेविरुद्धहै।आरोपपत्रमेंवादीकोजनवरी 2009 सेदिसम्बर 2009

तकअनधिकृतरूपसेअनुपस्थि तकाआरोपहै।जबकि वाहननिर्धारणअधिकारी

नेअपनीपहलीरिपोर्टस्वेच्छासेदि०29.06.2011

को28

माहकेबाददेनेकाक्या

औचित्यहै।वादीद्वाराजांचकार्यवाहीमेंपूछनेपरसम्बन्धि तअधिकारीद्वाराबतायागया

कि "

रिपोर्टदेनामेरेक्षेत्राधिकारमेंहै,

मैंसुपरवाइजरहूँरिपोर्टभेजनेकाउसकाअधिकार है----"

इसउत्तरसेयहसाबितहोताहैकि सम्बन्धि तअधिकारीकीमनमानीहैकि वह

चाहेएकमहीनेबादरिपोर्टभेजेयादोवर्षबाद।वाहननिर्धारणअधिकारीकेक्षेत्राधिकार

वसुपरवाइजरीकार्यपरविभागकाकोईनियंत्रणनहींहै।सुपरवाइजरकाकार्यनियम

विरुद्धभेदभावपूर्णहै,

जिसकेकारणवादीपरगलतआरोपलगायेगयेतथाअनुचितरूप

सेउसकीसेवाएंसमाप्तकीगयी।वादीकीसेवाएंभेदभावपूर्णआरोपोंवमनमानीरिपोर्ट

परसमाप्तकियाजानाअनुचितएवंअवैधानिकहै।वादीसवेतन,

उसीपदकेवेतनमान

परसेवासमाप्ति कीतिथि दि०29.09.2012

सेसमस्तहितलाभकेजोउसेनिरन्तरसेवा

मेंप्राप्तहोते,

केअधिकारपानेकाअधिकारीहै।चिकित्सीयआधारपरयदि वाहन

संचालनमेंअयोग्यहोजानेकेकारणउसेउसकीयोग्यताकेअनुसारअन्यकार्यप्रदान

कियाजानाविभागीयदायित्वहै।

अतःपत्रावलीपरउपलब्धतथ्यों, अभिवचनों, साक्ष्यों,

तथाविवेचनाकेआधारपरमैं

इसनिष्कर्षपरपहुंचताहूँकि राज्यसरकारद्वाराभेजागयासन्दर्भोंदेशकि "क्या

सेवायोजकपक्षद्वाराश्रमिकश्रीरामबहादुरपुत्रश्रीसुखराम(चालक)

कीसेवायेंदिनांक

29.09.2012

सेसमाप्तकियाजानाउचितएवंवैधानिकहै?

यदि नहीं,

तोसम्बन्धि त

श्रमिकक्यालाभ/

रिलीफपानेकाअधिकारीहैतथाअन्यकिसविवरणसहित?" के

सम्बन्धमेंश्रमिकश्री रामबहादुरपुत्रश्री सुखराम(चालक)

कीसेवायेंदिनांक

29.09.2012

सेकीगयीसेवासमाप्ति अनुचितएवंअवैधानिकहै।प्रतिवादीसेवायोजक

श्रीरामबहादुरपुत्रश्रीसुखरामकोसेवाकीतारतम्यताकेसाथपुनर्स्थापित/

बहालकरें।

चूंकि श्रमिकश्रीरामबहादुरपुत्रश्रीसुखरामद्वारादाखिलमेडिकलरिपोर्टसेयहतथ्य

साबितहोतेहैंकि वादीआँखोंकीबीमारीकेकारणवाहनसंचालन(चालक)

काकार्य

करनेमेंअसमर्थहै।अतःक्षमताओंकेअनुसारउसीवेतनमानपरविभागीयकार्यप्रदान

करनासुनिश्चितकरें।जहांतकबेकारीअवधि केमदमेंवेतनमांगनेकाप्रश्नहैवर्णित

परिस्थि तियोंमेंश्रमिकश्रीरामबहादुरसेवासमाप्ति कीतिथि

29.09.2012 सेबेकारी

अवधि कासम्पूर्णवेतन,

भत्तेवअन्यहितलाभउसीतरहपानेकाअधिकारीहै,

जैसाकि

वहसेवामेंरहतेहुएपाता।सेवायोजकपक्षअधिनिर्णयप्रकाशनकेदिनांकसेदोमाहके

अन्दरश्रीरामबहादुरपुत्रश्रीसुखरामकोभुगतानकरनासुनिश्चितकरे।ऐसानकरनेकी

दशामेंवादीश्रीरामबहादुरपुत्रश्रीसुखरामदेयसभीधनराशियोंपरअधिनिर्णयप्रकाशन

केदिनांकसेवास्तविकभुगतानकीतिथि तक10

प्रतिशतब्याजपानेकेअधिकारी होंगे।"

¶11Contesting-respondent was declared unfit to undertake the work of a Driver due to medical problems as his eyes were infected with a serious disease and since he was not granted any other job by petitioner, the reason for unauthorized absence from January, 2009 to December, 2009 was found not proved, though no specific finding was returned that even when contesting-respondent was not given alternative job, whether he can still remain absent since it could not be a reason for even not reporting for duty. There is no discussion on said aspect of case. Therefore, a finding that petitioner was absent due to certain reason, cannot be accepted. Contesting-respondent was not on any medical leave or any other extraordinary leave was granted.

¶12Otherwise also, it is well settled position of law that an order of reinstatement would not accompanied with an order of full back wages in a routine manner and for that the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 as well as State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma, 2025 INSC 1500.

¶13In view of above, it is evident that contesting-respondent has worked from 1989 to 2012 and there is no much dispute about his medical problem and even it is considered that charges were not proved, though the Court has already discussed that finding returned in award was not absolutely correct, there cannot be an order of full back wages as well as contesting-respondent cannot be reinstated now and that 40% of back wages has already been deposited, which is about Rs. 9 lacs.

¶14In aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice and taking note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Murari Sharma (supra), impugned award is modified to the extent that contesting-respondent shall be paid a one time lump sum compensation and since Rs. 9 lacs has already been deposited, the Court considers that it would be a reasonable and sufficient amount in given set of circumstances.

¶15A prayer of learned counsel for contesting-respondent that one time lump sum amount be increased to the extent of 50% of back wages, is not justified in given circumstances specifically in the light of discussion made by this Court in preceding paragraphs.

¶16Contesting-respondent will be at liberty to file an application for release of aforesaid amount of Rs. 9 lacs in his favour.

¶17With aforesaid observation, direction and liberty this writ petition is disposed of. September 16, 2026 AK (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad