AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent and Sri S.N. Dubey.
The petitioner-Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Jhansi Region, Jhansi has filed this writ petition.
The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Chhakauri Lal was a driver in the Corporation. His services were terminated w.e.f. 21.9.2001 after holding domestic enquiry on charge of driving bus under influence of liquor.
In the domestic inquiry the stand of the workman stated that his services have not been terminated for any corrupt practice ; that he does not ever take liquor or intoxicating drink and no medical certificate has been produced by the employer in the enquiry to establish that he was under the influence of liquor while driving the bus for which alleged act of misconduct, his services has been terminated. In his defence he also submitted that while he was the driving bus on 3.1.1993 on Kanpur Mahoba route, he became very sick and therefore stopped the bus at Maudha. Thereafter he requested the conductor to get a reliever driver.
The workman specifically denied the suggestion of the employer in the proceeding before the Labour Court that he was under the influence of liquor as alleged by the employees. The Labour Court on basis of pleading and on appreciation of evidence and record came to the conclusion that employers have failed to prove their case that workman was not ill and could not drive the bus being under the influence of liquor. The Labour Court also noted that workman was allegedly found in the bus by several persons with symptom similar to a person under the influence of liquor but those independent persons were neither produced nor summoned by the employers either in the domestic inquiry proceedings nor they were produced in the labour court.
The relevant extract of the impugned award in this regard is as under:
bl ekeys esa ftlds vk/kkj ij okn dk dkj.k mRiUu gqvk gS og gS i= bfXt0 bZ0&11 tks dsUnz izHkkjh] egksck }kjk lhfu;j QksjeSu egksck fMiks dks fy[kk x;k gS ftles mUgksus fy[kk gS fd ---- cl dh okilh fnukad 3-1-93 dks Fkh fdUrq Jh NdkSM+h yky pkyd us cgqr vf/kd u''kk dj j[kk Fkk ftls ekSngk ds ikl cl nq?kZVuk gksrs gksrs cph fdarq fdlh gkyr ls og cl dks ekSngk esa ykdj [kM+h dj nh A fnukad 4-1-93 dks ekSngk ds gh dqN lEHkzkUr O;fDr vk;s rFkk fnukad 3-1-93 dh ?kVuk fd NdkSM+h pkyd va/kk/kqU/k u''ks esa Fkk ;fn ;g pkyd ekxZ ij pyk;k tkrk jgk rks fuf''pr gh cgqr Hk;adj nq?kZVuk gks tk;sxh ftlls reke tkus Hkh tk ldrh gS bles vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd cl tks ekSngk esa [kM+h gS vU; pkyd Hkstdj egksck eaxokus dh O;oLFkk djus dk d"V djssa A bl fjiksZVdrkZ Jh d`".k dk c;ku bZ0MCyw&2 dh gSfl;r ls bl U;k;ky; esa djok;k x;k gS ftlus vius eq[; c;ku esaa dgk gS fd bfXt0 bZ0&11 fjiksZV essjs }kjk dh x;h gS ;g fjiksZV mlus NdkSM+h yky pkyd ds fo:) nh gS blesa tks dqN fy[kk gS og lgh fy[kk gS rFkk bfXt0 bZ0&6 mldh tkudkjh esa ugh gS A ftjg ds nkSjku bl xokg us dgk gS fd ^^eSus lacaf/kr Jfed dks ''kjkc fi;s gq, ugh ik;k eSus yksxks ds crkus ij fjiksZV bfXt0 bZ0&11 dh FkhA n.Mkf/kdkjh us esjk c;ku ugh fy;k x;k Fkk A^^ fjiksZV drkZ dh fjiksZV nwljksa ds c;ku ij vk/kkfjr gS A ftuds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij ;g fjiksZV mUgksus dh Fkh mu O;fDr;ksa dks U;k;ky; es is''k ugh fd;k x;k gS tcfd tks O;fDr muds ikl ,rn~ lEcU/k esa lwpuk nsus ds fy, x;s Fks A ekeys es cgqr egRoiw.kZ O;fDr Fks mudk uke irk rFkk lwpuk nsus ds laca/k esa muds gLrk{kj izkIr djus pkfg, Fkk A vkSj U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk&i= nsdj bUgs xokg ds :i esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgs xokg ds :i esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgs Loa; gh U;k;ky; esa is''k dj ldrs Fks A fjiksZV drkZ Loa; izR;{kn''khZ ugh gS A bl izdkj dh nh x;h lwpuk vlR; Hkh gks ldrh gS vr% eS ikrk gwaW fd fjiksZV drkZ dh fjiksZV lafnX/k gS vkSj ml ij fo''okl iw.kZ :is.k ugh fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ,slh fjiksZV ds vk/kkj Ikj fnukad 21-9-2001 ls lsok lekfIr dk fn;k x;k n.M+ fdlh Hkh n''kk es mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugh dgk tk ldrk gS A fQj Hkh ;fn oknh viuh M;wVh ds le; ''kjkc ihus ds ekeys esa Hkfo"; esa ik;k tk; rks mls dBksj ls dBksj n.M ftlesa mldh lsok lekfIr Hkh lfEefyr gS] fn;s tkus esa dksrkgh u cjrh tk; D;ksfd pkyd dk in cgqr egRoiw.kZ in gS ftlds cl lapkyu ds le reke ;kf=;ks dh tkus mlds gkFk ess gksrh gS vkSj ''kjkc ihdj cl dk lapkyu djuk xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gS A pwafd orZeku ekeys esa tSlk fd �ij mfYyf[kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] vkjksi fookfnr Jfed ds fo:) izHkkfor ugh gS vr% mls fn;k x;k n.M fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A
mijksDr leLr rF;ks ,oa ifjfLFkr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gWw fd lsok;kstdks }kjk Jfed NdkSM+h yky iq= Jh f''ko ckyd jke dh lsok,a vkns''k fnukad 21-9-2001 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugh gS A eS vkns''k nsrk gwWa fd lsok;kstd fookfnr Jfed dks rRdky mldh lsokvks dh v[k.M+rk ds lkFk lsok esa ys vkSj lsok ls fudkys tkus ds fnukad ls lsok esa iqu% fy;s tkus ds fnukad rd dh vof/k dk lEiw.kZ osru e; vuqeU; fgrykHkks lfgr bl vfHkfu.kZ; ds ykxw gksus ds fnukad ls ,d ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku djsa A
lsok;kstdks dks ;g Hkh funsZ''k fn;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr Jfed dks lsok ysus ds i''pkr] tSlk fd �ij dgk x;k gS] psrkouh i= vyx ls fuxZr dj nsa rkfd og ;fn fdlh izdkj ''kjkc ihus dk yrh gS rks Hkfo"; ds fy;s lpsr jgs A
EkS ;g Hkh vkns''k nsrk gwWa fd lsok;kstd i{k Jfed i{k dks 300@& :i;k �rhu lkS :i;k� dsoy okn O;; ds :i esa vnk djsxs A
g0 �fu;kt vgen� ihBklhu vf/kdkjh A
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award the petitioner filed this writ petition.
At the time of admission following ad interim order was passed, which is as under:
Sri S.N. Dubey has appeared for the respondent No. 1. He prays for and is allowed one month''s time to file counter affidavit.
Subject to compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes, 1947 the impugned award dated 27.3.2004 published on 27.9.2004 shall remain stayed.
Interim order was granted to the petitioner at the time of admission. He has clearly stated that the petitioner was reinstated and now retired from service.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the workman concerned was terminated illegally unjustifiably and illegally and the Labour Court has given specific findings of fact that employer have failed to prove their case and have also has not been able to produce any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was driving the bus in state of intoxication.
The counsel for the respondents does not deny that no independent witnesses were produced by the department to establish the fact that the workman concerned had driven the bus in a state of intoxication or was found in such state.
The workman was not even got medically examined in this regard and no medical record was produced in the domestic inquiry proceedings or even before the labour court.
In my opinion that if bus driver person falls ill or sick in route to destination, it cannot be said that he has committed a misconduct by not taking the bus to its terminal. Since the employer has failed to prove their case and to show any illegality or infirmity in the award of the labour court I am not inclined to interfere in the findings facts recorded by the labour court in this case.
The writ petition is dismissed. As a consequence learned Counsel ;he respondents will pay arrears of salary to the workman under the impugned award and shall also to make payment of his retiral benefit within a period of three months from today.
No order as to costs.