# Abaad Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 130 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abaad-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49602
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C -
Application for questioning the elections -
an order for a recount touches upon the
secrecy of ballot, it should not be made
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lightly or as a matter of course - two
broad guidelines are discernible - court
would be justified in ordering a recount or
permitting inspection of the ballot papers
only where (i) all the material facts on
which the allegations of irregularity, or
illegality in counting are founded, are
pleaded
adequately
in
the
election
petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying
the petition is prima facie satisfied that
the
making
of
such
an
order
is
imperatively necessary to decide the
dispute. (Para - 18)

Election for post of Gram Pradhan - petitioner
elected as Gram Pradhan - election petition
under Section 12-C - ground - applicant entitled
for re-counting - on basis of averments made in
election
petition
-
difference
in
valid/invalid/cancelled votes - overwriting and
cutting on counting sheet - strong suspicion of
fairness of counting procedure - direction of
election tribunal - to Tehsildar and Block
Development Officer to recount the votes -
submit records to election tribunal for passing
orders. (Para - 3,7)

HELD:-There being cutting/overwriting without
the
said
cutting/overwriting
being
countersigned. No infirmity or illegality in the
order directing for recounting of the votes.
(Para - 19)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Abaad Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
matter would be covered only by first
proviso to Section 33(5) of the Act.

9. In the present case, it is noticeable
and admitted between the parties that the
instrument
of
lease
is
dated
26th
September, 2002 whereas notice under
section 47-A read with Sections 33/40 of
the Indian Stamp Act has been issued on
31st January, 2010. Clearly the notice has
been issued after a period of four years
from the date of execution of instrument of
transfer and would be barred under
aforesaid provisions.

10. In the counter affidavit filed, the
opposite parties have not taken any such
ground that any prior permission from the
State Government has been taken before
issuance of the notice dated Ist January,
2010 in terms of 2nd proviso to Section
33(5) of the Act.

11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Som Dutt Builders Limited
versus State of U.P. and others reported in
2005(23) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1030
has particularly adverted to the aforesaid
provisions and has also come to the
conclusion on the same issue.

12. In view of aforesaid, since it is
evident that in terms of proviso to Section
33(5) of the Act, the initial notice itself was
incompetent, no other issue is required to
be adjudicated.

13.

Consequently
in
view
of
discussion
made
herein
above,
the
proceedings initiated vide notice dated Ist
January, 2010 under Section 47-A read with
Sections
33/40
of
the
Act
being
incompetent, the notice dated Ist January,
2010, order dated 31st August, 2010 passed
under section 47-A and order dated 30th
April, 2011 passed under section 56 of the
Act are set aside.

14. Resultantly, the petition succeeds
and is allowed. Parties to bear their own
costs.

15. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that in pursuance of
impugned orders, one third amount has
already been deposited before the authority
concerned. In view of fact that petition is
being allowed, liberty is granted to
petitioner to seek refund of the amount so
deposited. In case such an application is
made, the authority concerned is directed to
refund the excess amount deposited within
a period of three months from the date a
copy of this order is produced before the
authority concerned along with application.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 130 of 2023

Abaad Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Danish, Mohd. Mansoor, Syed
Abul Kasim Zaidi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gyanendra Mishra

(A)
Civil
Law
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C -
Application for questioning the elections -
an order for a recount touches upon the
secrecy of ballot, it should not be made
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lightly or as a matter of course - two
broad guidelines are discernible - court
would be justified in ordering a recount or
permitting inspection of the ballot papers
only where (i) all the material facts on
which the allegations of irregularity, or
illegality in counting are founded, are
pleaded
adequately
in
the
election
petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying
the petition is prima facie satisfied that
the
making
of
such
an
order
is
imperatively necessary to decide the
dispute. (Para - 18)

Election for post of Gram Pradhan - petitioner
elected as Gram Pradhan - election petition
under Section 12-C - ground - applicant entitled
for re-counting - on basis of averments made in
election
petition
-
difference
in
valid/invalid/cancelled votes - overwriting and
cutting on counting sheet - strong suspicion of
fairness of counting procedure - direction of
election tribunal - to Tehsildar and Block
Development Officer to recount the votes -
submit records to election tribunal for passing
orders. (Para - 3,7)

HELD:-There being cutting/overwriting without
the
said
cutting/overwriting
being
countersigned. No infirmity or illegality in the
order directing for recounting of the votes.
(Para - 19)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Khilari Vs The IVth A.D.J., Sonbhadra & ors. ,
AIR 1991 ALLD 186

2. Ravindra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , (2008)
105 RD 88

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Dr. Udaiveer Singh, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and Sri
Gyanendra
Mishra,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 5.

2. Instant petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certioari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
30.12.2022 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate/Prescribed Authority District-
Sultanpur in Case No. T20214680607476
of 2021 (Nizam Haider Vs. Abaad Ali and
Ors), as contained in Annexure No. 01 to
this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/Prescribed Authority District
Sultanpur
to
proceed
in
Case
No.
T20214680607476 of 2021 (Nizam Haider
Vs. Abaad Ali and Ors), in fair, transparent
and
impartial
manner
strictly
in
accordance with law."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that an election for the post of Gram
Pradhan had taken place. After election, the
petitioner was declared elected as Gram
Pradhan. The respondent no. 5 being
aggrieved with the election of the petitioner
filed an election petition under Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1947"). The said case was registered as
Case No. 7476 of 2021 Inre; Nizam Haider
Vs. Abaad Ali. The learned election
tribunal framed various issues of which
issue no. 2 was as to whether the applicant
is entitled for re-counting keeping in view
the averments made in the election petition.
The said issue has been decided vide order
dated 30.12.2022, a copy of which is
annexure no. 1 to the writ petition with the
direction to the Tehsildar and Block
Development Officer to recount the votes
on 16.01.2023. Videography has also been
directed to be done. A representative each
1 All. Abaad Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
of the applicant and the petitioner herein
has also been required to be present at the
time
of
recounting.
The
concerned
authority has been required to make
available the votes polled in order to enable
the recounting in police presence. The
Recounting officer has been directed to
make available the result of recounting to
the election tribunal and the matter has
been listed on 17.01.2023 for the purpose
of deciding the issues no. 1, 3 & 11.

4. The grounds taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner while challenging
the said order are that:-

(a) it is only the election tribunal
which could have counted the votes and
there has been delegation of power to the
Tehsildar and Block Development Officer
which could not have validly been done. In
this regard, reliance has been placed on the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Khilari Vs. The IVth Additional District
Judge, Sonbhadra and other reported in
AIR 1991 ALLD 186.

(b) the aforesaid officers cannot
decide the validity of the invalid/valid
votes which has been considered to be done
while deciding the issue no. 2.

(c) recounting had already taken
place prior to filing the election petition as
such, no recounting can be directed to be
done by the learned election tribunal.

(d) while directing for recounting,
the election tribunal has patently erred in
law inasmuch as it should have called for
the evidence of the returning officer and
assistant returning officer with regard to
allegations pertaining to form 46.

No other ground has been urged.

5. On the other hand, Dr Udaiveer
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
counsel as well as Sri Gyanendra Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 5
argue that the order passed by the election
tribunal while deciding the issue no. 2 only
directs for recounting of the votes. They
contend that despite the fact that the issue
no. 2 has been decided in favour of the
applicant/respondent no. 5 herein wherein
the issue which was as to whether the
applicant is entitled for re-counting was
framed and while deciding the said issue it
has been indicated that the invalid and valid
votes and part no. 1 & 2 of recounting slips
and the appendix are to be seen yet the final
order is only for directing for a recounting
of the votes and as such it is always open
for the election tribunal, after having the
result of the recounting before it, to pass
the final order in the matter. It is thus
contended that the instant petition has only
been filed on the basis of an apprehension
on the part of the petitioner/elected Gram
Pradhan apprehending that when the final
recounting is done it may result in the true
facts coming to the knowledge of the
election tribunal of the elected Gram
Pradhan having secured less votes and
hence the petition has only been filed in
order to avoid and delay the final outcome
of the election petition.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing
for the contesting parties and perused the
records.

7. From a perusal of records it
emerges that after the petitioner had been
declared as elected Gram Pradhan, an
election petition under Section 12-C of the
Act, 1947 has been filed by the respondent
no. 5 herein challenging the election of the
petitioner on various grounds. The learned
Election tribunal framed various issues of
which issue no. 2 was as to whether the
applicant is entitled for re-counting keeping
in view the averments made in the election
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition. The learned Election tribunal has
discussed issue no. 2 threadbare and was of
the view that there has been over writing
and cutting in the result form no. 46
pertaining
to
booth
no.
43
which
cutting/overwriting has also not been
countersigned, apart from there being
difference in the valid/invalid/cancelled
votes and has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case
Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P and Ors
reported in (2008) 105 RD 88 to take the
view that where either on account of
improper acceptance or improper rejection
of votes or there are apparent mistakes in
the counting which has affected the
election
result
or
where
there
are
overwriting and cutting on the counting
sheet then the same raises a strong
suspicion of the fairness of the counting
procedure.Thereafter, the learned Election
tribunal has passed an order requiring the
Tehsildar and Block Development Officer
to recount the votes and to submit the result
by means of the order impugned dated
30.12.2022.

8.

The
aforesaid
order
dated
30.12.2022 has been challenged on various
grounds as have been indicated above and
now the Court proceeds to deal with the
said grounds.

9. The first and second grounds of
challenge to the order impugned are being
dealt together. The said grounds are that (a)
it is only the election tribunal which could
have counted the votes and there has been
delegation of power to the Tehsildar and
Block Development Officer which could
not have validly been done and (b) the
aforesaid officers cannot decide the validity
of the invalid/valid votes which has been
directed to be done while deciding the issue
no. 2.

10. In this regard, reliance has been
placed on a judgment of this Court in the
case of Khilari (supra) to contend that it is
only the election tribunal which could have
counted the votes and not the Tehsildar and
Block Development Officer.

11. A perusal of the judgment in the
case of Khilari (supra) would indicate that
the order impugned before this Court in the
case of Khilari (supra) was that the
election tribunal had delegated the power
of recounting and declaration of result to
the
Tehsildar
and
it
is
in
those
circumstances that this Court in the case of
Khilari (supra) has held that as the
election tribunal was acting in quasi
judicial capacity it had no power to
delegate.

12. The facts in the instant case are
entirely different inasmuch as the Tehsildar
and Block Development Officer have been
directed by means of the impugned order
dated 30.12.2022 to count the votes and
then submit the records thereof to the
learned election tribunal for passing orders
upon the same on 17.01.2023. Thus, it is
apparent that the learned tribunal has not
delegated the power of declaration of the
result as was the case in the case of Khilari
(supra). Consequently, said grounds are
not found tenable and are rejected.

13. The ground (c) of challenge to the
order impugned is that the recounting had
already taken place prior to filing the
election petition as such, no recounting can
be directed to be done by the learned
election tribunal.

14. Suffice it to say that even if
recounting had been taken place prior to
filing of the election petition yet now it is
the election of the elected Gram Pradhan
1 All. Abaad Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
which has been challenged through the
election petition. For the purpose of seeing
as to whether the election of the petitioner
was valid it is within the power of election
tribunal to order for recounting of the
votes. While deciding the issue no. 2 the
learned election tribunal was of the view
that certain invalid votes have also been
considered. Thus, even if recounting had
taken place prior to filing the election
petition,
the
same
would
make
no
difference to the learned election tribunal in
directing for a recounting as it has
jurisdiction to do so while deciding an
election petition and has thus required a
recounting of votes consequently, the said
ground is not found tenable and is rejected.

15. The ground (d) of challenge to the
order impugned is that while directing for
recounting,
the
election
tribunal
has
patently erred in law inasmuch as it should
have called for the evidence of the
returning officer and assistant returning
officer as the allegations with regard to
form 46. Suffice it to say that once the
learned election tribunal, upon perusal of
the records as were produced before it as
finds mentioned in detail while considering
the ground (2), was of the view that there is
cutting and overwriting in various forms
which is also not countersigned as such, it
was within the power of learned election
tribunal upon being satisfied, to order for
recounting as has been done in the instant
case. Consequently, the said ground is
rejected.

16. Even otherwise, a perusal of the
order passed by the learned election
tribunal while discussing the issue no. 2
pertaining to recounting of votes indicates
that the learned Tribunal has considered
threadbare the grounds as were raised
before it and also has perused the material
and only after perusal of the material before
it and having found cutting/overwriting not
being countersigned that the learned
election
tribunal
has
directed
for
recounting.

17. This aspect of the matter has
already been considered by this Court in
the case of Ravindra Singh (supra). For
the
sake
of
convenience,
relevant
observations made in the case of Ravindra
Singh (supra) are reproduced below:-

"4. The law with regard to
recount of votes is fairly well settled. In
Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi
MANU/SC/0257/1974 the Supreme Court
cautioned that since an order for a recount
touches upon the secrecy of ballot, it
should not be made lightly or as a matter of
course. Although no cast iron rule of
universal application can be or has been
laid down, yet, from a bedroll of the
decisions
of
this
Court,
two broad
guidelines are discernible; that the court
would be justified in ordering a recount or
permitting inspection of the ballot papers
only where (I) all the material facts on
which the allegations of irregularity, or
illegality in counting are founded, are
pleaded adequately in the election petition,
and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the
petition is prima facie satisfied that the
making of such an order is imperatively
necessary to decide the dispute and to do
complete and effectual justice between the
parties. In Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai
Prakash Mishra MANU/SC/0279/1974 ,
Chanda
Singh
v.
Ch.
Shiv
Ram
1974MANU/SC/0260, Manphul Singh v.
Surinder Singh MANU/SC/0259/1974 ,
same
principles
were
upheld.
These
principles were reiterated in Bhabhi v.
Sheo
Govind
MANU/SC/0281/1975
:
AIR1975SC2117 as follows:
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) That it is important to
maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is
acrosant and should not be allowed to be
violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite
allegations:

(2) That before inspection is
allowed, the allegations made against the
elected candidate must be supported by
adequate statements of material facts;

(3) That the Court must be prima
facie satisfied on the materials produced
before the Court regarding the truth of the
allegations made for a recount;

(4) That the Court must come to
the conclusion that in order to grant prayer
for
inspection
it
is
necessary
and
imperative to do full justice between the
parties;

(5) That the discretion conferred
on the Court should not be exercised in
such a way so as to enable the applicant to
indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to
fish materials for declaring the election to
be void and

(6) That on the special facts of
the given case sample inspection may be
ordered to lend further assurance to the
prima facie satisfaction of the Court
regarding the truth of the allegations made
for a recount, and not for the purpose of
fishing out materials.

5. In S. Raghubir Singh Gill v. S.
Gurucharan
Singh
Tohra
MANU/SC/0290/1980 it was held as under:

True, re-count cannot be ordered
just for the asking. A petition for re-count
cannot be ordered after inspection of ballot
papers must contain an adequate statement
on material facts on which the petitioner
relies in support of his case and secondly
the Tribunal must be prima satisfied that in
order to decide the dispute and to do
complete justice between the parties an
inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.
The discretion conferred in this behalf
should not be exercised in such a way so as
to enable the applicant to indulge in a
roving inquiry with a view to fishing out
materials for declaring the election void.

6. In M.R. Gopalakrishanan v.
Thachady
Prabhakaran
MANU/SC/0991/1995, it was held that the
demand of defeated candidate for re-count
of votes has to be considered keeping in
view that secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct
in a democracy, and therefore, unless the
election petitioner is able not only to plead
and disclose the material facts but also
substantiate the same by means of evidence
of reliable character that there existed a
prima facie case for re-count, no Tribunal
or Court would be justified in directing a
re-count.

7. In Vadivelu v. Sundaram
MANU/SC/0634/2000 same principle was
reiterated with emphasis in paragraph 16
quoted as below:

The result of the analysis of the
above cases would show that this Court has
consistently taken the view that re-count of
votes could be ordered very rarely and on
specific allegation in the pleadings in the
election petition that illegality irregularity
was
committed
while
counting.
The
petitioner who seeks recount should allege
and prove that there was improper
acceptance of invalid votes or improper
rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is
satisfied about the truthfulness of the above
allegation, it can order recount of votes.
Secrecy
of
ballot
has
always
been
considered sacrosanct in a democratic
process of election and it cannot be
disturbed lightly by bare allegations of
illegality or irregularity in counting. But if
it is proved that purity of elections has been
tarnished and it has materially affected the
result of the election whereby the defeated
candidate is seriously prejudiced, the court
can resort to recount of votes under such
1 All. Abaad Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
circumstances to do justice between the
parties.

8. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J.
Francics MANU/SC/0061/2001, Supreme
Court went to the extent of holding that
once a recount is validly ordered and the
statistics revealed by the re-count are
available to be used for deciding election
dispute, the facts reveled by re-count
cannot be relied upon by the election
petitioner to support the prayer and sustain
the order for re-count if the pleadings and
material available on record anterior to
actual recount did not justify grant of the
prayer for inspection and re count.

9. In this case the Prescribed
Authority has found that there were
sufficient
pleading
with
material
particulars with regard to irregularities
in
counting of
votes
affecting
the
elections. He has set down the pleading
in which it was stated by the election
petitioner
that
after
the
election
petitioner was declared elected with a
difference of four votes, manipulations
were made in the election documents. In
booth No. 167 instead of 532, 464 valid
and 71 invalid votes, a total of 535 votes
were reported, whereas in the counting
sheet only 532 votes were recorded. As
against booth Nos. 169, 170 and 171 the
total number of votes were not written in
the counting sheet. Two votes in booth
No. 169; 4 in booth No. 170 and 2 in
booth
No.
171
were
reduced
by
manipulations by overwriting and that
instead of 2221 votes 2216 votes namely
5 votes were not shown, and 3 votes were
increased in booth No. 167. These
manipulations were made to defeat the
election petitioner. When he requested for
recounting, the request was denied."

18. From a perusal of the judgment
of this Court in the case of Ravindra
Singh (supra) it emerges that this Court
was seized of an order of the learned
election tribunal which had directed for
recounting of votes and had summoned
entire records before it. After considering
of the said order passed by the learned
election tribunal, this Court was of the
view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
cautioned that since an order for a recount
touches upon the secrecy of ballot, it
should not be made lightly or as a matter
of course yet no cast iron rule of universal
application can be laid down. However,
two broad guidelines are discernible; that
the court would be justified in ordering a
recount or permitting inspection of the
ballot papers only where (i) all the
material facts on which the allegations of
irregularity, or illegality in counting are
founded, are pleaded adequately in the
election
petition,
and
(ii)
the
Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima
facie satisfied that the making of such an
order is imperatively necessary to decide
the dispute.

19. As already indicated above, the
learned election tribunal while considering
the issue no. 2 has arrived at a specific
finding of there being cutting/overwriting
without the said cutting/overwriting being
countersigned. Thus, the principle of law
as laid down by this Court in the case of
Ravindra
Singh
(supra)
would
be
squarely applicable. When the order
impugned is seen in the context of finding
given to the issue no. 2 viz-a-viz the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Ravindra Singh (supra) this Court does
not find any infirmity or illegality in the
order directing for recounting of the votes
and the grounds taken by the petitioner in
this regard. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 1 ILRA 174
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 1610 of 2018

U.P.S.R.T.C. Reg. Office, Meerut
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, Sri Vikas Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Om Prakash Saxena, In Person,
Sri Varad Nath

(A) Labour Law - The Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 - Section 11-A - Powers of
Labour Courts, Tribunals and National
Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case
of discharge or dismissal of workmen - in
case of wrongful termination of service -
reinstatement with continuity of service
with back wages is a normal rule -
ordinarily, an employee demanding back
wages, is required to either plead or at
least
make
a
statement
before
the
adjudicating authority or at the Court of
first instance that he was not gainfully
employed or was employed on lessor
wages.(Para - 40)

Respondent no.2 appointed as a Bus Conductor
- in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
('UPSRTC' ) - duty - surprise checking on Bus -
corrupt practices adopted in distribution of
tickets - report - disclosing corrupt practices -
causing loss to UPSRTC and misbehaviour and
obstruction with checking squad - termination
from services - departmental appeal - rejection
- industrial dispute - labour court - award
against respondent - writ petition - remanded
back to labour court - award - published - full
back wages - not gainfully employed - hence
petition.(Para - 3 to 13)

HELD:-Established on record by respondent
no.2 that he was not gainfully employed after
his termination. Labour Court has rightly given
full back wages. Award of labour court affirmed.
(Para - 44,46)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kurukshetra University Vs Prithvi Singh ,
(2018) 4 SCC 483

2. Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar
Mills Ltd. Vs S. Viswanathan , (2005) 3 SCC 193

3. H.M. Ltd. Vs Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya &
anr., (2002) 6 SCC 41

4. Bhuvanesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs M/s. H.I.L. ,
2014 (142) FLR 20 (SC)

5. Kurukshetra University Vs Prithvi Singh ,
(2018) 4 SCC 483

6. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs K.J.A.M. , 2013
(139) FLR 541 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned
counsel for the appellant, and Sri Om
Prakash Saxena, respondent no.2, in
person.

2. The petitioner through the present
writ petition has assailed the impugned
award dated 29.08.2017 (notified by Govt.
Order No.715 dated 29.08.2017 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.
Meerut in Adjudication Case No.173 of
2002.

3. Respondent no.2 Om Prakash
Saxena, was appointed as a Bus Conductor
in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation