# Jawahar Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 533
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40476 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jawahar-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40165
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Sidhartha
S.C.

Labour & Service-termination-employers
treated
the
period
of
absence
of
workman as leave without pay-Labour
Court awarded reinstatement without
continuity of service and full backwagesaward modified by High Court-workman
entitled for only half backwages-as
workman
had
not
worked
after
termination
and
when
effered
employment subsequently.

Held- Para 6

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted
that
admittedly
the
workman's services were terminated
w.e.f. 14th February, 1990 and he has not
worked during all these years and when
the workman was offered employment,
he has not accepted it and since this fact
has not been disputed by the workman,
therefore, he is not entitled for full back
wages.

## Text

2 All] Jawahar Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
533
in civil capacities under the Union or a
State----
(1) ......................
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
except after an inquiry in which he has
been informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed
after such inquiry, to impose upon him
any such penalty, such penalty may be
imposed on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and it shall
not be necessary to give such person any
opportunity of making representation on
the penalty proposed :

Provided further that this clause shall
not apply.........

(a) ................
(b) Where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce
him in rank is satisfied that for some
reason, to be recorded by that authority in
writing, it is not reasonably practicable to
hold such inquiry."

4. Similar the provision of Rule 8
(2) (b) of the 1991 Rules is also
reproduced here-in-below :-

"Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of
the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991----

8.
Dismissal and removal :-
(1) ...................
(2) No police officer shall be dismissed,
removed or reduced in rank except after
proper
inquiry
and
disciplinary
proceedings as contemplated by these
rules :
Provided that this rule shall not apply---

(a) ..................

(b) Where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce
him in rank is satisfied that for some
reason, to be recorded by that authority in
writing, it is not reasonably practicable to
hold such inquiry."

5. A perusal of the dismissal order
will demonstrate that it does not disclose
any reason whatsoever as to why holding
of the departmental enquiry against the
charges leveled on the petitioner is not
possible. In this view of the matter, this
writ petition deserves to be allowed and
the impugned order of dismissal deserves
to be quashed.

6. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order dated 3rd August,
2002, Annexure-'1' to the writ petition, is
quashed. However, it will be open for the
Respondents to hold a regular enquiry and
may take action against the petitioner in
accordance with law after affording him
an opportunity of hearing. There will be
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 09.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40476 of 1998

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal(5),
Meerut and another
...Respondents

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
534
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sameer Sharma
Sri N. Mishra
Sri Avanish Mishra
(P) S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sidhartha
S.C.

Labour & Service-termination-employers
treated
the
period
of
absence
of
workman as leave without pay-Labour
Court awarded reinstatement without
continuity of service and full backwagesaward modified by High Court-workman
entitled for only half backwages-as
workman
had
not
worked
after
termination
and
when
effered
employment subsequently.

Held- Para 6

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted
that
admittedly
the
workman's services were terminated
w.e.f. 14th February, 1990 and he has not
worked during all these years and when
the workman was offered employment,
he has not accepted it and since this fact
has not been disputed by the workman,
therefore, he is not entitled for full back
wages.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the employer, U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation,
Meerut
has
challenged the award dated 22.12.1997
passed in Adjudication Case No. 47 of
1992 by Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal (5), U.P., Meerut {hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal'}, copy
whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to
the writ petition. The Dy. Labour
Commissioner vide order dated 4.3.1992
referred the following dispute to the
tribunal:

"D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh egkchj
flag] iq= Jh ekaxs flag dks fnukaWd 14-2-90 ls dk;Z ls
i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr@vFkok voS/kkfud gS?
;fn gkWa] rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k 1⁄4fjyhQ1⁄2
ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the
labour Court issued notices to the parties.
Both
the
parties
exchanged
their
pleadings and on the basis of the
pleadings two additional issues were
framed by the tribunal, which are as
under:

(1) Whether
the
departmental
enquiry conducted against the workman
was not fair and proper and was against
the principles of natural justice?

(2) Whether the action of the
employers in treating the period of
absence of the workman as leave without
pay amounts to condonation of his
misconduct? If so, its effect?"

3. The parties have adduced their
evidence. The Labour court has proceeded
to take up the reference as well as
additional issues together. The Labour
Court has held that the enquiry against the
workman was neither fair and proper nor
it was conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. It was further
held by the Labour Court that the
employers' action of charge sheeting the
workman for the period for which they
had granted him leave amounted to
condoning of his alleged misconduct. The
employers have failed to prove that the
workman
remained
in
gainful
employment after his termination. As
such, the workman is entitled for
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & another
535
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
questioned the aforesaid finding which, in
my opinion, is unassailable as the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point
out as to whether the finding is contrary to
material on record or is perverse thus in
any way suffers from manifest error of
law so as to warrant interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In this view of the matter, this
court in exercise of powers conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India will not interfere with the findings
recorded by the Labour Court being
findings of fact.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that admittedly the
workman's services were terminated
w.e.f. 14th February, 1990 and he has not
worked during all these years and when
the workman was offered employment, he
has not accepted it and since this fact has
not been disputed by the workman,
therefore, he is not entitled for full back
wages.

7. In view of the above submissions
made
by
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-employer and also in the
interest of justice, in my opinion, the
award is required to be modified to the
extent that the workman shall be entitled
for only half of the back wages instead of
full back wages from the date of
termination till the date of award. Rest of
the award is upheld.

8. In view of what has been stated
above, the writ petition is dismissed
except for above modification. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22890 of 1996

L.P. Saxena

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri S.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.K. Pandey
S.C.

Service Law-Natural justice-petitioner
reverted on basis of an adverse entryrelevant
documents-not
suppliedreasonable opportunity not given-order
can not sustained.

Serive Law- Reversion-adverse entry
awarded after third enquiry conductecd
for same charges--petitioner exonerated
in two previous enquiries- such act of
respondents- held, not proper- intended
to cause harassment.

Held- Para 9

The petitioner was denied the relevant
documents asked by him for the purpose
of his defence, though it is not necessary
to supply every document asked for, but
the authorities are under obligation to
supply material and relevant document
and
no
person
can
be
dismissed
,removed or reduced in rank or violated
with adverse consequences in violation
of the principles of natural justice and
without
giving
him
reasonable
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in