# Lahari Singh v. Labour Court, Ghaziabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 688
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 48353 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lahari-singh-v-labour-court-ghaziabad-ors-48225
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil law - Domestic enquiry - Labour
Court - labour court is enjoined by law to
consider the domestic enquiry & to
determine the validity and findings of the
domestic enquiry on their merits - it is
imperative for the labour court to make an
objective consideration of the domestic
enquiry and return findings in that regard
- labour court is also enjoined by law to
reverse findings of the domestic enquiry
which according to it are vitiated - if
required it can call for evidence and enter
independent findings on the relevant
issues - however labour court cannot
overlook the findings returned in such
enquiry (Para 16)

Domestic enquiry proceedings taken out against
the petitioner, a driver of the UPSRTC bus, on
two charges - one of the charge was that the
petitioner travelled a distance of only 26 kms
causing financial loss to the UPSRTC - defence
of the petitioner was that the conductor had
taken ill during the course of journey and was
not medically fit to travel any further - In the
absence of conductor
the bus could
not
continue its onward journey to the final
destination - enquiry officer found that the
second charge was not proved - However the
disciplinary authority did not found the reply of
the petitioner to be satisfactory & services of
the petitioner was terminated - labour court did
not call relevant witnesses while enquiring into
the charge no. 2, labour court neglected to
consider the findings of the enquiry report and
did not reverse the findings of the enquiry
officer - Held - labour court failed to consider
the evidences of the petitioner, the employer
witness Vedpal who had deposed regarding the
illness of the conductor - labour court erred in
law by neglecting to consider vital pieces of
evidences - Since the petitioner was dismissed
in the year 1991 & labour court award was
passed on 02.12.2006 court found that no
purpose will be served by remitting the matter
to the authorities - Court granted 40%
backwages to the petitioner & all other terminal
dues to be paid without deduction.

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)03ILR A688
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 48353 of 2007

Lahari Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court, Ghaziabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sumati Rani Gupta, Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramanuj Pandey, Sri V.C. Dixit,
Sri Vivek Mishra

Civil law - Domestic enquiry - Labour
Court - labour court is enjoined by law to
consider the domestic enquiry & to
determine the validity and findings of the
domestic enquiry on their merits - it is
imperative for the labour court to make an
objective consideration of the domestic
enquiry and return findings in that regard
- labour court is also enjoined by law to
reverse findings of the domestic enquiry
which according to it are vitiated - if
required it can call for evidence and enter
independent findings on the relevant
issues - however labour court cannot
overlook the findings returned in such
enquiry (Para 16)

Domestic enquiry proceedings taken out against
the petitioner, a driver of the UPSRTC bus, on
two charges - one of the charge was that the
petitioner travelled a distance of only 26 kms
causing financial loss to the UPSRTC - defence
of the petitioner was that the conductor had
taken ill during the course of journey and was
not medically fit to travel any further - In the
absence of conductor
the bus could
not
continue its onward journey to the final
destination - enquiry officer found that the
second charge was not proved - However the
disciplinary authority did not found the reply of
the petitioner to be satisfactory & services of
the petitioner was terminated - labour court did
not call relevant witnesses while enquiring into
the charge no. 2, labour court neglected to
consider the findings of the enquiry report and
did not reverse the findings of the enquiry
officer - Held - labour court failed to consider
the evidences of the petitioner, the employer
witness Vedpal who had deposed regarding the
illness of the conductor - labour court erred in
law by neglecting to consider vital pieces of
evidences - Since the petitioner was dismissed
in the year 1991 & labour court award was
passed on 02.12.2006 court found that no
purpose will be served by remitting the matter
to the authorities - Court granted 40%
backwages to the petitioner & all other terminal
dues to be paid without deduction.

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1.

Heard
Dr.
Rajesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and Sri Ramanuj Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent Corporation.

2. Domestic enquiry proceedings
were taken out against the petitioner on two
charges (the chargesheet is not part of the
record). The substance of the charges as
enumerated in the impugned award of the
labour court is extracted thus:

On 08.03.1990 the petitioner was
taking a UPSRTC bus from Khurja to
Aligarh. The petitioner was driver of the
bus
while
Dinesh
Kumar
was
the
conductor. En-route an investigation team
boarded the bus and found that 21
passengers were without tickets. The way
bill did not contain any details of 15
passengers who had boarded the bus
3 All. Lahari Singh Vs. Labour Court, Ghaziabad & Ors.
689
between Khurja and Aligarh. The petitioner
and the conductor Dinesh Kumar created
impediments
in
the
investigation
by
inciting the passengers. The petitioner as
well as the conductor declined to put their
signatures to the way bill and the inspectors
encountered difficulties in making entries
in the way bill.

3. The second charge against the
petitioner is this. On 08.03.1990 the
scheduled distance of the bus journey was
306 kms. However the petitioner and the
conductor travelled a distance of only 26
kms. causing financial loss to the UPSRTC.

4. The domestic enquiry officer
submitted his report on 12.04.1991. The
enquiry officer found credence in the
defence of the petitioner that the conductor
and not the petitioner was responsible for
issuance of tickets to the passengers. On
this footing the enquiry officer exonerated
the petitioner of the charge of permitting
ticket less passengers in the bus. However
in regard to creating impediments in the
conduct of the investigation the petitioner
was found guilty by the enquiry officer.
The inspecting team members testified that
the petitioner had instigated the passengers
and the team members had to flee for their
lives.
The
petitioner
prevented
the
inspection team from completing the
investigation
against
him
and
the
conductor. The enquiry officer believed the
testimonies
of
the
members
of
the
inspecting team and indicted the petitioner.

5. As regards the second charge the
defence of the petitioner was that the
conductor had taken ill during the course of
journey and was not medically fit to travel
any further. The medical certificate of the
conductor Dinesh Kumar was proved
before the enquiry officer. The stand of the
petitioner was also corroborated by Dinesh
Kumar. DW-1, Lahari Singh testified
before the enquiry officer that he had got
the conductor admitted to a hospital, and
also provided the supporting medical
certificate. These facts were also stated in
the duty slip, which was marked as exhibit3 and duly proved before the enquiry
officer. DW-2 Vedpal who accompanied
the petitioner to the depot, deposed that he
had taken the conductor to the doctor. DW3 Ali Sher, chowkidar testified that Vedpal
and the petitioner arrived together at the
bus stop in the bus. The medical condition
of the conductor Dinesh Kumar was duly
intimated to the competent authority
through one Udaiveer Singh. However, the
authorities failed to send a relieving
conductor. In the absence of conductor the
bus could not continue its onward journey
to the final destination. The enquiry report
found that the credibility of the said
witnesses could not be impeached by the
employer during the enquiry proceedings.
The enquiry officer on the aforesaid
material concluded that the second charge
against the petitioner that he had caused
financial loss to the Corporation was not
proved. The petitioner was exonerated on
this score.

6. Upon submission of the enquiry
report a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner. The petitioner tendered his
reply to the notice which was not found
satisfactory by the disciplinary authority.
The services of the petitioner were
terminated on 17.09.1991.

7. An industrial reference was made
in regard to the validity of the termination
of the petitioner by the order dated
17.09.1991. The labour court adjudicated
the aforesaid reference and passed the
impugned
award
dated
02.12.2006
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upholding the termination of the petitioner.
The labour court in the award recorded the
fact that the petitioner was working as a
temporary
driver
in
the
respondent
Corporation w.e.f. 1976 till his termination
in the year 1991. After noticing the charges
laid out against the petitioner the labour
court entered upon a consideration of the
controversy on merits. The labour court
found that the enquiry was conducted in
consonance of principles of natural justice
and no procedural impropriety therein
could be established.

8. The following witnesses appeared
before the labour court on behalf of the
parties. The petitioner appeared as DW-1.
On behalf of the employer Jaiveer Singh as
appeared as EW-1, H.N. Kaushik has
appeared as EW-2, Ashutosh Gaur as EW-3
and Sri Rajendra Singh Solanki as EW-4.
The domestic enquiry report discussed
earlier was introduced as evidence by the
employer.

9. The labour court in the impugned
award has affirmed the indictment on
charge no. 1 though not in a detailed
manner. It is noteworthy that the enquiry
officer found the petitioner guilty of the
part of charge no. 1 which was of
instigating the passengers against the
inspection team and threatening their lives
and preventing them from discharging their
duties. The domestic enquiry found that
applicant impeded the inspection team and
precluded them from completing the
enquiry. The inspection team escaped with
their lives after being threatened by the
passengers instigated by the petitioner. The
aforesaid finding was based on materials in
the record and supported by reasons. There
is no infirmity in the aforesaid finding. No
material to establish illegality in the said
finding of the domestic enquiry was
referred to this Court either from the
impugned award or the record of the case.
The said finding by the domestic enquiry
officer remains unrebutted and has to be
upheld.

10. As regards the second charge laid
out against the petitioner of causing loss to
the Corporation, the petitioner had clearly
deposed before the labour court that he
could not traverse the entire route as the
conductor Dinesh Kumar had fallen ill
during the course of journey. No relieving
conductor was sent by the employer despite
communication having been sent to the
depot. The health condition of conductor
Dinesh Kumar was communicated to the
competent authority by the petitioner
through Udaiveer. The witness who had
appeared on behalf of the employer
testified before the labour court that the
petitioner had informed him that the
conductor of his bus had fallen ill.

11. The report of B. P. Singh, Senior
Station Master marked as Exh. 26 contains
a recital that the petitioner and the
conductor were required to traverse 306
KM. from Khurja Aligarh to Delhi. The
conductor and the driver only traversed 26
KM and abandoned the vehicle. There was
no technical fault in the vehicle. The
petitioner
and
the
conductor
were
responsible for causing financial loss to the
Corporation. The labour court relying only
upon the report of B.P. Singh concluded
that the second charge stood established by
evidence. Finding for the employer it was
held that both the charges laid out against
the petitioner stood proved and declined to
interfere in the punishment of dismissal.

12. The labour court in the impugned
award failed to consider the evidences of
the petitioner, the employer witness Vedpal
3 All. Lahari Singh Vs. Labour Court, Ghaziabad & Ors.
691
who had deposed regarding the illness of
the conductor and failure of the authorities
to send a reliever.

13. The labour court in the impugned
award also neglected to consider the
findings of the enquiry report. The labourt
court did not call relevant witnesses while
enquiring into charge no. 2. The findings of
the enquiry officer as discussed earlier
exonerated the petitioner from charge no. 2
were based upon fair consideration of
evidences.

14. Labour court in the impugned
award did not advert to the aforesaid facts
and evidences. The labour court while
entering the impugned award did not
reverse the findings of the enquiry officer.

15. In the opinion of this Court
domestic enquiry findings were reasonable
and made upon due consideration of the
evidences in the record. The labour court
clearly erred in law by neglecting to
consider such vital piece of evidences.

16. The labour court is enjoined by
law to consider the domestic enquiry and
cannot overlook the findings returned in
such enquiry. The labour court was under
an obligation of law to determine the
validity and findings of the domestic
enquiry on their merits. The labour court
was also enjoined by law to reverse
findings of the domestic enquiry which
according to it are vitiated. Further it was
required (to call for evidence if required)
and enter independent findings on the
relevant issues.

17. This Court in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Vs State of U.P. and
2 others, (Writ-C No. 6374 of 2021) while
examining the importance of a domestic
enquiry held it was imperative for the
labour
court
to
make
an
objective
consideration of the domestic enquiry and
return findings in that regard:

"The
labour
court
in
the
impugned award has neglected to return a
finding on the third charge namely
continuous absence from duty with effect
from 18.01.2004 onwards. This absence
was proved and found to be wilful in the
domestic enquiry proceedings. Since no
contrary finding has been recorded in the
impugned award, the domestic enquiry
report in regard to the same has to be given
effect to.

Secondly, the labour court has
not examined some relevant findings
returned by the domestic enquiry, and has
not reversed the said findings. Domestic
enquiries have a critical role to play in
industrial relations. Domestic enquiries
cannot be given a short shift or completely
ignored by the labour court as was done in
this case. This failure of the labour court is
sufficient to vitiate the impugned award."

18. The labour court award is
arbitrary, illegal and vitiated. The award
passed
by
the
labour
court
dated
02.12.2006 is liable to be set aside and is
set aside.

19. The findings of the domestic
enquiry are upheld.

20. Admittedly from the material in
the record the first charge against the
petitioner stands established. The charge is
of a serious nature. The petitioner was
dismissed from service in the year 1991.
The labour court award was passed on
02.12.2006. No purpose will be served by
remitting the matter to the authorities and
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sending the parties into another orbit of
litigation. Interests of justice will be served
by deciding the matter finally and bring the
controversy to a litigative rest. The
petitioner has long superannuated from
service, relief of reinstatement in service
cannot be granted at this stage. In view of
the indictment of the petitioner on the first
charge, which is a major misconduct, the
petitioner cannot get away scot free. The
appropriate relief in this case would be to
grant 40% backwages to the petitioner.
However all other terminal dues shall be
paid without deduction.

21.

The
Managing
Director,
UPSRTC, is commanded to ensure that the
aforesaid benefits is disbursed to the
petitioner or his legal heirs within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order downloaded from the
official website of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad.

22. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2022)03ILR A692
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1001107 of 2007

The
Assembly
of
God
North
India
Balrampur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dhruv Mathur, D.M. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Deficit stamp duty - stamp
duty is payable on the 'market value' of
the property & not on the 'circle rate' -
stamp duty is payable on consideration
paid or "market value" of the property,
whichever is greater - Determination of
Market Value of property - Market value of
the property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable reasonably of being put to,
immediately or in the proximate future -
possibility of the land becoming available
in the immediate or near future for better
use and enjoyment reflects upon the
potentiality of the land - potential has to
be assessed with reference to the date of
the execution of the instrument - use to
which land in the area had been put is a
material consideration - Collector would
be within jurisdiction in referring to
exemplars which have a bearing on the
true market value of property which is
required to be assessed (Para 27, 28 )

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 27 -
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation
of
Property) Rules, 1997, Rule 3, 4,5, 6 -
Facts affecting duty to be fully & truly set
forth in instrument - duty is cast upon the
parties
to
a
deed
to
truly
set
forth/mention
in
instrument,
the
consideration, if any, and all other facts
and
circumstances
affecting
the
chargeability of any instrument with duty
- in case of instruments relating to
immovable property chargeable with an
ad valorem duty, the duty is payable on
the true value of the property and not on
the value set forth in the instrument (Para
20 )

Petitioner-society purchased a land & paid
stamp duty on a sale consideration of Rs.24
Lakhs - Deputy Registrar found that the land
purchased had commercial use, for which stamp
duty ought to have been paid on commercial
rate, whereas the stamp duty was paid at
agricultural rate of the land petitioners' society
in his reply submitted that nature of the land in