Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Mohan Singh And Another on 17 May, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No.1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6444 of 2010
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and another ........ Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan Singh and others ........ Respondents
******************
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners have questioned the validity and legality of the award dated 2nd January, 2009 passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with 60% back wages.
This Court by an interim order directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman but stayed the back wages. Pursuant to this interim order, the workman was reinstated.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the workman was employed as a Driver in the petitioner's corporation and was chargesheeted on two counts, namely, misbehaviour and using abusive language against the Assistant Regional Manager and, that on a particular date the workman instead of driving the bus on a particular route drove the bus on another route.
In the domestic inquiry, the charges were proved and, on that basis, an order of termination was passed. Before the Labour Court a preliminary issue was framed with regard to the fairness of the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and thereafter proceeded and decided the case and directed reinstatement with 60% back wages.
Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Samir Sharma vehemently attacked the findings of the Labour Court in vitiating the inquiry report and contended that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and that there was no finding contrary to that. The learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court has set aside the inquiry report on merits and not on the ground that the inquiry was unfair or violative of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the Court has perused the award and finds that the reason given by the Labour Court for setting aside the inquiry report is on the ground that the Assistant Regional Manager was not competent to issue the suspension order and that the chargesheet was not signed by the Regional Manager and that the Assistant Regional Manager did not appear before the Inquiry Officer to prove the incident with regard to the abusive language used by the workman against him.
In the opinion of the Court, the Labour Court has misdirected itself. The Labour Court is not acting as a Court of appeal and where a domestic inquiry is held the jurisdiction of the Labour Court gets limited to the extent of only considering the fairness of the inquiry proceedings and the quantum of punishment awarded. The Labour Court could only go into the merits of the matter after it initiates the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry proceedings can only be vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as embodied under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the instant case, the Court finds that there is no finding of the Labour Court on the question that the inquiry was violative of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Court finds that full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself was given by the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the Labour Court vitiating the inquiry report was totally illegal and incorrect. The said finding cannot be sustained.
Once this portion of the award is set aside, the Court has no option but to allow the writ petition and quash the award and remit the matter to the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh but the Court finds that pursuant to the interim order, the workman was reinstated and during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman reached the age of superannuation and has now retired from service. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to the Labour Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the given case, the award of the Labour Court is accordingly modified to the extent that the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with continuity of service is affirmed but in the facts and circumstances of the given case, the workman is not entitled for any back wages.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2013
Bhaskar
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
