# Indrapal Kori And Others v. U.P.S.R.T.C

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 21448 of 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indrapal-kori-and-others-v-u-p-s-r-t-c-44424
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-Section 6
(2-A)- Violation of natural justice-not
supplying any documents or evidence in
support of charges. Tribunal has power
to substitute a lesser punishment in
place of punishment of discharge or
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissal only and not in any other
punishment.

This Court, is, therefore, left with no option but
to uphold that finding of the Tribunal that says
that the inquiry was not procedurally fair but
flawed and conducted in violation of principles
of natural justice, for the reasons indicated
hereinabove.But this conclusion could not have
entitled the Tribunal to modify the award and
substitute a lesser punishment than that
awarded by the departmental authorities,
invoking powers under Section 6(2-A) of the
Act. The Tribunal finding it to be a case of
denial of opportunity ought to have proceeded
to
record
evidence
itself,
requiring
the
employers to prove charges before it by leading
appropriate evidence. (Para 13 & nd 14)

Cases cited:-

Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1990
(61) FLR 635 (E-9)

## Text

1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1161

22. The facts of this case, as
disclosed from the records, and confirmed
by submission of the parties, establish the
fact that the challenge to the auction sale
was not instituted, before the competent
authority, created under Rule 285(I) of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
&
Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 by an eligible
person. The competent authority, to
entertain the challenge to the auction, is
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, in terms of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules, 1952. The person, whose
property was auctioned, is eligible to
assail the auction under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules, 1952.

23. Further, a pre-deposit of the
amount, as contemplated, under Rule
285(H) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952, for entertaining such application,
has not been made. Nothing has been
brought in the record or pointed out by the
learned counsel, to evidence such predeposit,
contemplated
under
Rule
285(H)of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952.

24. The records and details of
proceedings,
before
the
competent
authority, under Rule 285(I) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, have also not been brought
in the record. Nor has anything to this
effect been pointed out by the learned
counsel. No pleadings, in regard to
satisfaction of pre-requisites, to challenge
the auction sale, under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules, 1952 have been taken by the
respondent No.3, in the counter affidavit.
In any case, the order impugned, does not
arise from such proceedings.

25. The proceedings, initiated, at the
behest of the Naib Tehsildar, were clearly in
the teeth of the provisions of the rules, framed
under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Rules, 1952. No fault in the order
dated 20.06.2011, passed by the learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, could
be pin pointed by the learned counsel for the
respondents.

26. The order dated 14.10.2011 passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi is arbitrary and illegal. The
order dated 14.10.2011 is beyond jurisdiction.
The order dated 14.10.2011 cannot stand.The
order, dated 14.10.2011, passed by the learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, is
quashed.

27. The order dated 20.06.2011, passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, is affirmed.

28. The writ petition, is allowed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - C No. 21448 of 1999

Indrapal Kori And Others ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Samir Sharma, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.,

A. U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-Section 6
(2-A)- Violation of natural justice-not
supplying any documents or evidence in
support of charges. Tribunal has power
to substitute a lesser punishment in
place of punishment of discharge or
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissal only and not in any other
punishment.

This Court, is, therefore, left with no option but
to uphold that finding of the Tribunal that says
that the inquiry was not procedurally fair but
flawed and conducted in violation of principles
of natural justice, for the reasons indicated
hereinabove.But this conclusion could not have
entitled the Tribunal to modify the award and
substitute a lesser punishment than that
awarded by the departmental authorities,
invoking powers under Section 6(2-A) of the
Act. The Tribunal finding it to be a case of
denial of opportunity ought to have proceeded
to
record
evidence
itself,
requiring
the
employers to prove charges before it by leading
appropriate evidence. (Para 13 & nd 14)

Cases cited:-

Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1990
(61) FLR 635 (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner. No one
appears on behalf of the respondentworkman.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the judgment and award passed by
the Presiding Officer,
Industrial
Tribunal-III, Kanpur dated 27.11.1998
passed in Adjudication Case No.37 of
1994 deciding an industrial dispute
between the petitioner-U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
and
their
workman, Indrapal Kori.

3. The petitioner-U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation,
who
are
represented by their Regional Manager,
Kanpur, are hereinafter referred to as the
'Employers' whereas Indrapal Kori, a bus
conductor,
who
is
the
contesting
respondent, is hereinafter referred to as
the
'workman'.
The
workman
is
admittedly a bus conductor in the service
of the employers, posted in the Kanpur
Region of the employer's establishment.
According to the employer's case, on
27.08.1990, the workman was detailed to
operate bus bearing No.UHJ-9515, plying
on the Asoha-Mornwa route. This bus
was checked by a checking team, who
found out of the total of 75 passengers on
board, 23 to be travelling without ticket.
This bus was again checked the same day
at Unnao, where it was found that out of
the 32 passengers on board, 19 were
travelling without ticket. The same bus
was stopped for a third check the same
day on the same route, and again, some
serious irregularities were detected.

4. A report in the matter was
submitted to the employers by the
Checking
Teams,
who
upon
being
satisfied that a case of misconduct worth
initiating disciplinary proceedings against
the workman was made out, issued a
charge-sheet dated 6.10.1999.

5. The workman submitted a reply to
the charge-sheet and in due course, a
departmental
inquiry
was
convened.
According
to
the
employers,
full
opportunity was afforded to the workman
to defend himself. Witnesses on behalf of
the employers, who were produced at the
inquiry were offered to the workman for
cross-examination. The workman was
also
given
opportunity
to
produce
evidence in his defence. The proceedings
of the inquiry being concluded, an
enquiry report was submitted to the effect
that charges of serious misconduct stood
proved against the workman. On the basis
of the aforesaid report of the departmental
inquiry, a show-cause notice dated
29.8.1992, along with a copy of the
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1163
inquiry report was served upon the
workman by the employers requiring him
to show-cause as to why he may not be
reduced in the time-scale to his basic
salary for three years with cumulative
effect, and further, the balance of his
salary for the period of suspension be not
forfeited. It is the Employer's further case
that the Appointing Authority considered
the entire material on record and vide an
order dated 31.10.1992, the workman was
punished with reduction in time-scale to
his basic salary for three years with
cumulative effect, and further, the balance
of salary for the period of suspension was
ordered to be forfeited.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the
workman raised an industrial dispute under
Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act',
which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal
for adjudication vide Government Order dated
25.10.1994. The reference was made in the
following terms (translated into English from
Hindi Vernacular)

"Whether
the
punishment
awarded by the employers to their
workman
Indrapal
Kori,
conductor,
Fatehpur Depot, vide punishment order
dated 31.10.1992, is invalid and improper.
If yes, to what benefit/relief is the
concerned workman entitled."

7. A written statement each was
filed on behalf of the employers and the
workman, with a rejoinder statement
each, filed by the workman and the
employers, as well.

8.

According
to
the
written
statement filed by the workman, he was
employed as a Conductor, posted at the
Fatehpur Depot. He was suspended
pending
inquiry
on
6.10.1990
and
preceding that on 6.9.1990, a charge-sheet
dated 6.9.1990 was issued that was served
upon him on 11.10.1990. According to
the charge-sheet, amongst others, the
workman was charged in terms that on
18.06.1990, when the bus operated by
him was inspected, 17 passengers without
ticket were found on board, but an attempt
to make that entry on the waybill was
prevented by him, which resulted in loss
of revenue to the employers. He was
charged further in terms that he did not
act according to his obligation as a
Conductor, carrying a quintal of freight
and not issuing tickets, despite realizing
fare from the passengers, amongst others.
It was pleaded in the written statement
that prior to issue of the charge-sheet in
question, no preliminary inquiry was
made by the employers and further that
along with the charge-sheet, necessary
documents were not supplied to the
workman. It was further pleaded that the
workman's defence offered at the inquiry
was not considered and doing a mere
show of consideration of the workman's
case, an inquiry report was submitted on
the basis of which, the order of
punishment dated 31.10.1992 was passed
whereby
salary
for
the
period
of
suspension
was
forfeited
and
the
workman was reduced to his basic pay for
a period of three years with cumulative
effect. Together with this order of
punishment,
the
workman
was
transferred, which has been castigated as
illegal. The workman sought relief of
invalidation of the order of punishment
and payment of his salary for the period
of
suspension,
after
deducting
the
subsistence allowance, besides award of
costs.

9. The employers in their written
statement, raised a preliminary objection
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the workman had raised an industrial
dispute through a Union, which was not
registered. It was urged that since the
dispute
was
not
raised
through
a
registered Union, the order of reference is
bad. That apart, it was pleaded that the
workman is still functioning on the post
of a Conductor, but his conduct is not
satisfactory. It was also urged that on
27.08.1990, while the workman was
operating the bus bearing Registration
No.YHJ-9515 on the Asoha-Moranwa
route, a checking team intercepted the bus
and found on board some 75 passengers,
of whom 23 were travelling ticket-less.
Lateron, the same bus when checked at
Unnao, and was found ferrying 32
passengers of whom 19 were without
ticket. The same vehicle was checked a
third time on the Unnao-Lucknow route
where it was found carrying one quintal
of freight, comprising plastic raincoats
(the word employed in Hindi is "Barsati"
and whether it is a raincoat or some other
kind of protection gear from rains, is not
clear). It is on the basis of these three
separate instances of checking done on
the same day, at different points, relating
to the same vehicle, operated by the
workman that he was charge-sheeted on
6.10.1990. The workman was given
adequate opportunity to dispel the charges
at the inquiry held before Sri B.C. Jain,
who was a duly appointed Inquiry
Officer. The inquiry was done strictly in
adherence to the principles of natural
justice, where full opportunity was
afforded to both parties to lead evidence
before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry
Officer submitted his report after a careful
perusal of the evidence on record. A
show-cause notice was issued to the
workman on 29.08.1992, mentioning the
proposed punishment. In answer to that,
the workman submitted his reply bereft of
any further documents or evidence. The
reply was found not satisfactory. The
Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass
an order dated 31.10.1992, punishing the
workman in the terms already indicated. It
was pleaded that the punishment awarded
is lawful and just. It was also pleaded that
in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 63
of the Service Rules of 1981, that govern
the service conditions of the workman, an
employee can be reduced to a lower scale
on the same post. It was also pleaded that
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
It was pointed out further that the
workman did not prefer any appeal from
the order of punishment, as provided
under the Service Rules. It was, in
addition, claimed that in case the Tribunal
finds that the domestic inquiry held has
not been conducted in accordance with
the Rules of natural justice or it is
otherwise unfair, the employers may be
given an opportunity to lead evidence in
support of the charges and establish them
by evidence before the Tribunal.

10. The parties led evidence before
the Tribunal in support of their respective
cases. The workman in his evidence
reiterated facts to the effect that he was
given a charge-sheet relating to the three
separate instances of checking of the bus
operated by him, where in two cases,
violation in the form of some ticket-less
passengers was found, and in one case,
freight being illegally carried was alleged.
He said in his evidence that he demanded
documents related to the three charges,
which in turn related to the three instances
of checking but the same were not
supplied; instead, some other documents
were supplied. He further said that out of
the three checking Officers involved, only
two appeared before the domestic inquiry
and no charge was found proved against
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1165
him
by
the
Inquiry
Officer,
who
submitted an inquiry report exonerating
him. He further said in his evidence
before the Tribunal that the bus had
stoppages
at
short
distances
where
passengers
were
boarding
and
deboarding on account of which, he was
unable to make entries in the waybill. So
far as the charge relating to freight being
carried illegally was concerned, the
checking Officers did not mount the bus
and check what was placed in the luggage
carrier at the top. They instead, made a
guess work of it and mentioned all that
they have said in their report. He also said
that at that time the bus that he was
operating did not have any freight on
board. He also said in his evidence before
the Tribunal that he had been awarded
three punishments: one was forfeiture of
his salary for the period of suspension
beyond the subsistence allowance; the
second was reduction to the basic payscale with cumulative effect; and, the
third was a penal transfer. He had
specifically demanded documents through
an application and when those were not
provided, he had sent applications marked
as Exhibit D4 and D5 that were reminders
for the purpose. There is still another
document marked as Exhibit D6, through
which he applied but was not given
opportunity of hearing. He complained
verbally to the Inquiry Officer about all
these matters. All that he was given by
way
of
documents
on
which
the
employers relied, was his order of
suspension. He specifically said that no
other document was given to him. He also
said in his evidence that the officers
carrying out the checking demanded of
him illegal gratification, which he says he
did not and could not pay, particularly so,
as he does not do anything illegal while
operating
his
bus.
He
also
stated
specifically in his evidence that these 23
and 17 passengers found on board, are
passengers about whom entry in the
waybill had not yet been made by him. So
far as the freight/luggage is concerned, he
had no such luggage being ferried by him.

11. The Tribunal has recorded it for a
fact that so far as the employers are
concerned, an Assistant Traffic Inspector
proved some of the documents whereas the
complainant is the Traffic Superintendent.
The other documents were proved by the
Office Superintendent, who said in his
evidence that the Assistant Traffic Inspector is
never detailed to duty alone. He further stated
that it is incorrect to say that the 17 tickets that
had been detached from their binding, were
not taken into possession by the checking
party. It was further stated that the checking
teams were told by passengers that the
Conductor had charged them, but had not
issued tickets. He, however, stated that no
written complaint was made or any note to
that effect made by the checking officer, as to
why entry regarding 17 passengers was not
made on the waybill. About Exhibit D3, he
said that he has no information. The Office
Assistant said in his cross-examination that
the inquiry was not held before him, and he
was not in a position to say who testified in
the domestic inquiry. The documentary
evidence, marked as Exhibit E7 to E15, were
proved by these witnesses.

12. At the hearing of this petition,
the respondent-workman has not appeared
despite sufficient service being effected.
This Court has perused the impugned
award and carefully considered the
submission of Sri Sunil Mishra, in assail
of it. One of the submissions of Sri Sunil
Mishra, on which much emphasis has
been laid is to the effect that the Tribunal
could not have exercised powers under
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 6(2-A), in the present case, and
make an award setting aside part of the
punishment alone, substituting it by a
lesser punishment. In this connection, he
submits that the power to substitute a
lesser punishment by the Labour Court or
Tribunal, while making an award is
available under Section 6(2-A) of the Act,
in the event punishment of discharge or
dismissal has been ordered. In the instant
case, since punishment of discharge or
dismissal has not been ordered, the
Tribunal could not have set aside the
punishment order and substituted it by
lesser punishment, in terms of its award.
To this extent, Sri Mishra is right in his
submission that a lesser punishment could
not be awarded by the Tribunal, unless the
punishment awarded by the employers
was discharge or dismissal from service.
The
power
to
substitute
a
lesser
punishment by the Tribunal under Section
6(2-A) of the Act is there alone with
regard to punishment of discharge or
dismissal under sub-section (2-A) of
Section 6 of the Act, where in the opinion
of the Labour Court or Tribunal, that
punishment is disproportionate to what
circumstances of the case require. Here is
not that case, since the punishment
awarded is one of reduction in time-scale
to basic pay with cumulative effect.

13. However, that would not deprive
the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to
pronounce upon the validity of the award. It
is also submitted by Sri Mishra that the
award
of
the
Tribunal
holding
the
departmental inquiry to be not fair and
proper is an incomplete disposition of the
matter; for if the Tribunal was of opinion that
the inquiry was not fair and there was denial
of opportunity, it ought to have given
opportunity
to
parties,
including
the
employers, to lead evidence in support of the
charges before the Tribunal, which it ought
to have determined on merits. It is submitted
that this demand was specifically made
before the Tribunal but fell on deaf ears. A
perusal of the impugned award shows that
the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the
process of inquiry is far from fair,
particularly so as documents that are relevant
to the charges were not supplied to the
workman and further that the checking
officer, who is a Traffic Superintendent was
not examined before the Inquiry Officer or
before the Tribunal on the pretext that he had
retired from service. The Tribunal has also
said that no evidence has been brought on
record to show that the Checking Officer
who had made the complaint, that is to say,
the concerned Traffic Superintendent has
indeed retired from service. The Tribunal
beyond this finding has said that there is
provision under Rule 63 of the Service Rules
to impose major and minor punishment, but
there is no provision for the reduction of a
workman in time scale and, therefore, the
punishment awarded is not in accordance
with the Rules. The Tribunal has relied a
decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant
Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (61)
FLR 635. This Court may say at once that
the said decision is hardly relevant to the
controversy
involved
here,
as
rightly
submitted by Sri Mishra.

14. This Court on a wholesome
consideration of the matter is of opinion
that on two counts the Tribunal found the
inquiry to be unfair and one conducted in
violation of principles of nature justice.
This was because documents relevant to
the charges were not supplied and the
complainant,
who
was
a
Traffic
Superintendent was not examined, either
during the domestic inquiry or before the
Tribunal in support of the charges, on
ground that he had retired from service.
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1167
This Court is of the clear opinion that the
fact that an employee has retired from
service would not absolve the employer of
their liability to examine the complaint of
the case at the domestic inquiry to prove
charges against the workman. This the
Tribunal has found not to have been done.
Certainly on both these counts, the
Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong that
the inquiry was not fair and one held in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The fact that these two features of
the inquiry have been found to be
deficient by the Tribunal, leading to the
inquiry being procedurally flawed and
one in violation of principles of natural
justice is a finding of fact which has not
been demonstrated by the employers to be
palpably wrong or one suffering from an
error apparent on the face of the record. It
is otherwise a finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal on a perusal of record and
taking a reasonable view of the evidence.
This Court has noticed the fact that the
employers
have
not
annexed
any
document relating to the inquiry, or the
manner in which it has proceeded so as to
enable this Court to verify whether
findings
of
the
Tribunal
regarding
violation of principles of natural justice or
procedural unfairness are in any manner
palpably wrong, manifestly illegal, or
suffer from an error apparent. There is no
document to cross-check those findings of
the Tribunal. This Court, is, therefore, left
with no option but to uphold that finding
of the Tribunal that says that the inquiry
was not procedurally fair but flawed and
conducted in violation of principles of
natural justice, for the reasons indicated
hereinabove.

15. But this conclusion could not
have entitled the Tribunal to modify the
award and substitute a lesser punishment
than that awarded by the departmental
authorities,
invoking
powers
under
Section 6(2-A) of the Act. The Tribunal
finding it to be a case of denial of
opportunity ought to have proceeded to
record evidence itself, requiring the
employers to prove charges before it by
leading appropriate evidence. It could
then have held the case against the
workman proved or concluded to the
contrary, and set aside the award. This is
what ought to have been done by the
Tribunal, and this is what this Court
thinks the Tribunal ought to do.

16. In the face of the circumstances
that there is no petition at the instance of
the workman challenging that part of the
award by which punishment awarded by
the employers has been maintained in part
by the Tribunal, this Court cannot pass
judgment finally deciding the industrial
dispute. In addition, in the absence of a
counter affidavit by the workman, this
Court is all the more handicapped in
ascertaining many essential facts and
drawing its independent conclusion based
on evidence. It is already remarked that
there is absolutely no evidence before this
Court except the impugned award passed
by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances,
this Court thinks that this matter must go
back to the Tribunal with a direction that
it should decide the matter afresh within
three months next in accordance with law,
after affording opportunity of hearing to
parties. It is made clear that the Tribunal,
while disposing of the matter afresh will
permit the employers to lead evidence in
support of the charges, and the workman,
to defend himself on those charges before
the Tribunal. It is also provided that the
Tribunal may hold the award to be illegal
and improper or legally sound and proper.
In case it concludes in favour of the
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
workman, the Tribunal may do anything
or pass any kind of orders within the four
corners of law permissible, but the
Tribunal
will
not
substitute
the
punishment awarded by the Tribunal,
though, it may, set aside the award or
uphold the same, in accordance with the
evidence that is forthcoming on record.

17. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed in part.

18. The impugned judgment and
award passed by the Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-III, Kanpur dated
27.11.1998 is hereby quashed and the
matter is remanded to the Tribunal to
decide Adjudication Case No.37 of 1994
afresh, after permitting parties to lead
evidence and pass fresh orders within
three months next from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order, in
accordance with law, and whatever has
been said in this judgment.

19. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - B No. 50816 of 2009

Chandra Shekhar Vishwakarma
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court- 2 U.P.
Kanpur And Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.R. Dwivedi, Sri Ali Hasan, Sri
Brijendra Deo Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.A. Gaur, Sri Sunil Kumar
Mishra

A. Exparte proceeding-Inquiry proceedings
conducted without the schedule and venue
intimated to the delinquent is exparte
proceeding and is bad in eyes of law.

Labour Court committed error in not appreciating
evidence
as
to
receipt
of
notices.
Two
propositions are too well settled to brook
any doubt. One is about the time-tested
principle that an inquiry held without notice
to the delinquent workman is a nullity, and
all proceedings based on such an inquiry
would collapse. The second is that a finding
recorded
by
any
Court,
Tribunal
or
Authority, ignoring material evidence from
consideration,
or
drawing
perverse
conclusions from evidence, can never be
sustained.(Para15)

Cases cited: -

1.North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation vs. H.H.Pujar, AIR 2008 SC 3060,

2. Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Kamruddin , (2009)
SCC 552 (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brijendra Deo Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

2. This writ petition has been
preferred by a workman challenging an
award of the Labour Court 2nd, U.P.,
Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 235 of
1999, dated 02.09.2008 and published on
13.01.2009. The said award is hereinafter
referred to as 'the impugned award'. By
the impugned award, an industrial dispute
raised at the instance of the petitioner,
Chandra Shekhar Vishwakarma, who is