HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?(Judgment reserved on 31.5.2011) (Judgment delivered on 4.7.2011) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34751 of 2003 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru' Regional Manager Respondent :- Rajendra Singh & Others Petitioner Counsel :- C.P. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,G.K.Srivastava Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 23.8.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour court (II), U.P., Kanpur in adjudication case no.119 of 1998. The matter which was referred to the Labour court was as to whether action of petitioner-employer terminating the services of its workman-driver-respondent no.1 with effect from 30.6.1997 was just and valid or not? The services had been terminated after domestic inquiry. There were four charges against respondent no.1. Three related to non-stopping of the bus on getting the signal for the same from the checking party on 28.8.1995, 19.10.1995 and 23.10.1995. The fourth charge was that respondent no.1 mis-behaved and slapped his superior Shri Hari Datt Dwivedi, Assistant Regional Manager on 12.6.1996.
Chargesheet was given on 24.9.1996, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Reply to the chargesheet given by the workman is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Petitioner was suspended on 28.5.1996 through order passed by Shri Hari Datt Dwivedi, A.R.M., Azad Nagar, Kanpur. Three reports regarding refusal of the workman-driver to stop the bus on getting the signal was given by Shri S.B.Singh, Jagdish Prasad, Gupta and Shri Ram Bahadur all Junior Centre Incharge. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta was Assistant Traffic Inspector. The third report was given jointly by Ram Bahadur, K.N.Verma, Ramesh Chandra Dubey as Assistant Traffic Inspector and Shri Suresh Singh, Traffice Inspector. In the reply it was mentioned that the workman was required to stop the vehicle by showing diary however, the Inspectors were not wearing the proper dress (wardi) and that they also did not identify themselves.
Regarding the incident of 12.6.1996 (slapping the superior) the reply of the workman was that from 11.6.1996 to 13.6.1996 he was at Lucknow alongwith one Vinod Kumar, President Ward Congress Committee and in that regard some certificate dated 10.10.1996 was also issued by Shri Vinod Kumar. The precise allegation was that on 12.6.1996 alongwith two of his colleagues, respondent no.1 man-handled the A.R.M.
In the domestic inquiry the officers who had filed the reports against respondent no.1 were not examined. A.R.M. Shri Hari Datt Dwivedi appeared as witness. As the question of fairness of domestic inquiry was not decided as preliminary issue hence evidence was also adduced before the Labour court for proving the charges. The workman also got examined himself before the Labour court. Shri Vinod Kumar Singh also gave his evidence before the Labour court. However, he stated that he was not aware that what were the charges against the workman. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta who had reported regarding the incidence of 19.10.1995 was examined as witness before the Labour court. He was Assistant Traffic Inspector. Shri Ram Bahadur also appeared as witness who had recorded the incidence of 23.10.1995. He was also Assistant Traffic Inspector. Shri Hari Datt Dwivedi also gave his evidence before the Labour court. Before the Inquiry Officer apart from him, Shri Mool Chandra and Shri Yadav, S.S.I. were also examined who were witnesses to the incidence of 12.6.1996. Shri Mool Chandra who was Junior Foreman also appeared as witness before the Labour court and gave evidence regarding the incident of 12.6.1996. Thereafter, the Labour court held that as the Inquiry Officer was not produced and he did not prove the report hence the report was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, in para-15 of the award the Labour court held that as domestic inquiry was not fair hence punishment order was illegal.
It is rather shocking to note that witnesses had been produced before the Labour court by the management but the Presiding Officer did not say a single word as to whether the charges were proved or not before it.
After the submission of the inquiry report, its copy was given to the respondent no.1 alongwith show cause notice. Respondent no.1 gave the reply, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the said reply he did not say that he was not provided full opportunity of hearing by the Inquiry officer. He only said that incidence of 12.6.1996 was not mentioned in the suspension order and that in the report of A.R.M. two other accomplices of respondent no.1 were also mentioned however, against them no action had been taken.
In this writ petition on 11.8.2003 an interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned award upon complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. On the date on which arguments were heard in this writ petition learned counsel for both the parties stated that after passing of the interim order respondent no.1 was reinstated.
The impugned award cannot be sustained. The domestic inquiry has been held to be against the principles of natural justice only on the ground that inquiry officer was not examined. Respondent no.1 could not show that he was denied full opportunity of hearing. Even in his reply to the show cause notice after submission of report of the inquiry officer he did not say that there was least denial of opportunity of hearing to him. As factum of holding of inquiry was not denied hence it was not necessary for the Inquiry Officer to prove his report before Labour court. Respondent no.1 could not show that he had obtained any permission of employer for leaving the station for going to Lucknow on 11,12 and 13.6.1996. Several witnesses proved the incidence of 12.6.1996. An employee who cannot respect his superior cannot be permitted to remain in service. The vague allegation that respondent no.1 was not permitted to cross-examine the A.R.M. by the Inquiry Officer was not at all substantiated. Respondent no.1 did not show that he gave any application to the inquiry officer or to any other officer regarding this denial. As mentioned above even in his reply after getting copy of the report of the Inquiry officer he did not say a single word regarding refusal of opportunity to him to cross examine the A.R.M.
Accordingly, the impugned award is not at all sustainable in law. Services of respondent no.1 were rightly terminated.
Writ petition is therefore, allowed. Impugned award is set aside and it is held that the services were rightly terminated. However, whatever amount has been paid to the respondent no.1 after passing of the interim order in this writ petition shall not be refundable.
Order Date :- 4.7.2011 RS