Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C Lko and Ors v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko and Anr

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17227 of 2017 Petitioner :- Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C Lko And Ors Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Chaturvedi,Ambika Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Amar Nath Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Sahu Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶1Heard Shri Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amar Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶2Present petition has been filed challenging the award dated

04.11.2016 whereby an award was passed in favour of respondent no.2 directing reinstatement and 50% back wages was also awarded till the time, respondent no.2 was to superannuate.

¶3From perusal of the award, what transpires is that in respect of the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the inquiry conducted against respondent no.2 was an inquiry in accordance with law or not. The said issue was decided on

14.08.2015 against the petitioner and after deciding the same against the petitioner, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, which according to the award, the petitioner never availed of.

¶4In the present writ petition, there is no challenge to the order dated 14.08.2015. It is admitted at the Bar that the opportunity of evidence as given by the Tribunal was not availed of, as such, in respect of the finding of the Tribunal with regard to reinstatement, no material exists to enable this Court to interfere with the said award.

¶5As regards the grant of 50% back wages, the order of the Tribunal itself records that the workmen had pleaded that despite efforts he did not find any employment; the said award further records that apart from the pleadings, no effort was made by the respondents to adduce any evidence to that effect and in fact, even in the oral testimony, no such statement was given to support the pleading as pleaded by respondent no.2.

¶6In the entire writ petition or from the records, there transpires nothing to demonstrate that the petitioner had controverted the specific pleading by respondent no.2, as such, the pleading of respondent no.2 was uncontroverted, thus, on that count also, no interference is called for.

¶7The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 14.12.2023 nishant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench