Allahabad High Court
U.P.Road Transport ... vs U.P.State Public Service ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33907 of 2019
Petitioner :- U.P.Road Transport Corp.Thru.Regional Manager
Respondent :- U.P.State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru.Registrarandanr
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Ramakant Up,Shiv Nath Goswami
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner-U.P.S.R.T.C. and Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent, are present.
2. Sri Santosh Kumar Ramakant Upadhyaya and Sri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no., 2 are not present. When the matter was last listed on 6.1.2023, they were not present on the said date.
3. In view of the above we proceed to decide the case.
4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ?U.P.S.R.T.C.?) challenging the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhavan, Lucknow, allowing the claim petition No. 1883 of 2015, which has been filed by the opposite party No. 2, Shri Arun Bhan Tiwari, challenging the order of stoppage of 5 annual increments without cumulative effect and for not paying him any financial benefits for the period he remained out of service.
5. The opposite party No. 2 had been appointed on the post of Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C. in May 1996. Opposing his transfer from Amethi to Hardoi, he participated in a Dharna (sit-in) in the office of Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Faizabad.
6. Writ Petition No. 75 (S/S) of 2017 filed by the opposite party no. 2 challenging his transfer order dated 29.12.2006 was dismissed and the opposite party no. 2 was directed to join his duties on the transferred post within 24 hours. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that when he went to join his duties, he was not permitted to join and he was informed that he had been suspended by means of order dated 9.1.2007. The opposite party no. 2 was terminated from service by means of an order dated 18.7.2008 and the appeal filed by him was partly allowed and the opposite party no. 2 was reinstated in service, but his five increments were stopped without cumulative effect and it was ordered that no monetary benefit will be paid to him for the period he remained out of service. A representation submitted against the appellate order was rejected and, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 filed the claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal challenging the appellate order, which has been allowed by the Tribunal by means of the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018.
7. The aforesaid order has been challenged by U.P.S.R.T.C. on the ground that opposite party no. 2 was working on the post of Conductor, when he was terminated.
8. Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner/U.P.S.R.T.C., has submitted that Conductor falls ?within the definition of Workman given in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the Public Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition filed by a Conductor.?
9. In the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. State Public Service Authority and others, 2007 (4) AWC 3496, a Division Bench of this Court held that Public Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition filed by a Workman under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
10. Mr. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner/U.P.S.R.T.C. has placed Reliance on a judgment dated 6.8.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21367 (S/S) of 2019 wherein this Court while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Conductor of U.P.S.R.T.C. challenging an order passed by the Public Service Tribunal in a claim petition, which was filed by him against a punishment order, held that ?We find that the Tribunal is entertaining claim petition against the Transport Corporation, even in the matters where claimants fall within the definition of the ?Workman? as given under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, though the same is not permissible under the Public Service Tribunal Act 1976.?
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhavan, Lucknow, has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition filed by a Conductor, who is a Workman within the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhavan, Lucknow, in claim petition No. 1883 of 2015, is without jurisdiction.
12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Indra Bhavan, Lucknow, in claim petition No. 1883 of 2015 is hereby quashed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 27.1.2023/A.Nigam
