Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. vs C.P. Soni & Another on 3 May, 2011
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Judgment reserved on 15.04.2010)
(Judgment delivered on 03.05.2011)
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54900 of 2002
Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corpn.
Respondent :- C.P. Soni & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- C.P. Srivastava,Anubhav Chandra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ashwani Mishra,K.P. Agrawal,Manish Kumar Soni,Miss R. Mariyam,S.S. Agnihotri
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 23.04.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.27 of 2000. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Chandra Prakash Soni, respondent No.1 who was conductor w.e.f. 25.08.1997 was just and valid or not.
Services were terminated after holding domestic inquiry, which was initiated by giving charge sheet dated 27.01.1999 to the workman. The allegation was that on three occasions on surprise inspection of the bus on which respondent No.2 was performing duty as conductor several passengers were found without ticket. The defence of the respondent No.1 was that on each occasion he was in the process of making tickets. The case of the employer was that firstly on 21.03.1996 at the time of inspection, several passengers were there in the bus but the entire way bill was blank. Nothing had been entered thereupon and on the direction of the Inspecting officer tickets were issued to the concerned passengers. The other charge against the workman was that on 12.12.1996 at the time of inspection, out of 63 passengers 11 passengers were found without tickets and it was entered on the way bill by the Inspecting officer that the conductor had refused to sign on his noting on the way bill. Almost after two weeks the respondent was for the third time caught carrying 34 ticket-less passengers on 28.12.1996.
The workman gave an application in writing before the I.O. that he did not want to cross-examine any of the witnesses of the employer. The labour court held that the workman was not aware of the technicalities of the inquiry and the report given by the I.O. on the ground that the witnesses of the employer were not cross-examined by the workman was against the principles of natural justice. This is an utterly illegal finding. It amounts not only to condone the fraud but to give premium thereupon.
Ultimately, labour court held that the termination was just and legal. No specific finding was recorded by the labour court that the domestic enquiry was unfair. By reading the whole award it is clear that it was passed by the labour court by showing benevolence towards the workman conductor.
The impugned award is utterly illegal. On three occasions, workman was found carrying ticket-less passengers and at one occasion, all the passengers were without ticket. It was grave mis-conduct. Setting aside such types of termination orders gives a licence to dishonesty and embezzlement not only to the charged employee but to others also.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned award is set aside. Whatever amount has been paid to the workman after his reinstatement whether it was complete salary or incomplete salary shall not be refundable but no further amount shall be payable to the workman even if the payment made to the workman after reinstatement was not complete salary as alleged by learned counsel for workman but denied by learned counsel for the employer.
Order Date :- 03.05.2011
NLY
