Allahabad High Court
Jagat Pal Singh vs Prescribed Authority / Labour ... on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10875 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jagat Pal Singh
Respondent :- Prescribed Authority / Labour Court Iv And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Ram Raj Prajapati,Surendra Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awdesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhijit Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 10.12.2019, 29.05.2018 and 27.10.2017.
The petitioner before this Court was a driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as "UPSRTC"). He had joined the Corporation in the year 2005 and continued to work till 18.02.2017. According to UPSRTC, a letter was sent on 19.02.2017 by petitioner informing the Corporation that he had suffered injuries and needed rest. Thereafter, again on 21.03.2017, a letter was sent by the petitioner for 15 days' leave. According to Corporation, the petitioner-workman had subsequently on 05.04.2017 had again sent letter informing that he could not join due to ill health and needed 15 days' leave. The Corporation on 03.04.2017 had informed the petitioner to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar for medical examination but he failed to do so. According to petitioner, he had taken leave on 19.02.2017 and was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 395/412 IPC. He was sent to jail and was released on bail on 21.11.2017 by the orders of this Court and was released from jail on 04.12.2017. By the time he was released from jail, UPSRTC had terminated his services on 27.10.2017. He filed an appeal before appellate authority on 04.05.2018 which was dismissed on 29.05.2018. Thereafter, petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to Labour Court (4), Kanpur. The Labour Court made an award on 10.12.2019 and found that the termination order dated 27.10.2017 was in accordance with law and needed no interference and the reference was decided.
Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the notice sent by UPSRTC/employer was never served upon petitioner as he was in jail and after he was granted bail by this Court on 21.11.2017 that he came to know about the termination order that he challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority without recording any finding as to any opportunity given to the petitioner had upheld the order of termination. He then contended that the petitioner could not be convicted under Section 412 IPC once he has been acquitted of charges under Section 395 IPC. He also submitted that the service of notice alleged upon his wife is also not correct to the extent that the same was not handed over to him when he came out of the jail and later on when he came to know about the said order, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2008 11 SCC 709. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Brahma Dev vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India and others, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22319 of 2005, decided on 28.02.2006.
Per contra, counsel appearing for UPSRTC submitted that petitioner was convicted by trial court in sessions trial on 21.02.2017 and this fact was never intimated to the Corporation by the concerned workman. He then contended that the workman on 19.02.2017 had himself informed the Corporation that he was unwell and needed 15 days' leave as he was undergoing treatment. He then submitted that this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on 21.11.2017 and the criminal appeal is still pending and he has not been acquitted of the charges. Lastly, it was contended that the reference made to the Labour Court is barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC as the petitioner had already availed the departmental remedy as provided and his appeal having been dismissed, the reference could not be made.
I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1998 was pending consideration against petitioner under Section 395/412 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Banda since 1998. The said fact was never disclosed by petitioner to his employer. The petitioner had taken leave on 19.02.2017 and the date fixed for judgment in the Sessions Trial was 21.02.2017. The application which has been moved by petitioner before the Labour Court clearly reveals that case set up by him before the Labour Court was that he was on leave on 19.02.2017 and had been falsely implicated in a criminal case and was sent to jail. There is no disclosure on behalf of petitioner as to the pendency of the sessions trial and his conviction in the said trial by the order dated 21.02.2017. After the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court in criminal appeal on 21.11.2017 after almost 9 months that he filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 04.05.2018 against the dismissal order dated 27.10.2017. Till this time he had not informed his employer about the conviction order and his involvement in the criminal case. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 29.05.2018 and thereafter the reference was made to the Labour Court in which the Labour Court had declined to interfere and an award was made which is under challenge.
From perusal of the material on record, it is evidently clear that petitioner on each and every stage had concealed the material fact from employer as to the pendency of the criminal case and conviction against him by the sessions court.
Reliance placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar @ Raju (supra) does not support the case to the extent that once criminal appeal is pending before this Court, the appellate Court shall go into the question as to whether the petitioner is to be acquitted of the criminal charges under Section 412 IPC for which he has been convicted. This Court is dealing with his termination order dated 27.10.2017 and the reference which has been made to the Labour Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no case for interference is made out in the award made by labour court and the order of punishment as well as order of appellate authority.
Writ fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.3.2023
V.S.Singh
