# U.P.S.R.T.C v. Chhakauri Lal and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 2005
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-chhakauri-lal-and-others-41161
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Termination of services-on allegation the
workman being driver under influence of
liquor
found
on
duty-Labour
court
recorded specific finding-about any piece
of evidence in support of allegation, nor
any
medical
examination
report
produced-no illegality shown in the
award given by Labour Court-cannot be
interfered under writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para 12 & 13

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.

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

17. In view of the aforesaid, there is
no illegality or infirmity in the judgement
and order passed by the learned Single
Judge.

18. The special appeal lacks merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 2005

U.P.S.R.T.C.

... Petitioner
Versus.
Chhakauri Lal and others Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Anand Gaur

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Dubey
Sri A.R. Dwivedi
Sri. Prabhakar Chandel
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Termination of services-on allegation the
workman being driver under influence of
liquor
found
on
duty-Labour
court
recorded specific finding-about any piece
of evidence in support of allegation, nor
any
medical
examination
report
produced-no illegality shown in the
award given by Labour Court-cannot be
interfered under writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para 12 & 13

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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for respondent
and Sri S.N. Dubey.

2. The petitioner-Regional Manager,
UPSRTC, Jhansi Region, Jhansi has filed
this writ petition.

3. 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.

4. 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 Manoba route,
he became very sick and therefore
stopped the bus at Maudha. Thereafter he
requested the conductor to get a reliever
driver.
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Chhakauri Lal and others
725
5. 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.

6. 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= bfXt0bZ0&11 tks dsUnz izHkkjh] egksck }kjk
lhfu;j QksueSu egksck fMiks dks fy[kk x;k gS ftlesa mUgksaus
fy[kk gS fd ---------- cl dh okilh fnukad 3.1.93 dks Fkh
fdarq Jh NdkSMh yky pkyd us cgqr vf/kd u'kk dj j[kk Fkk
ftlls eksngk ds ikl cl nq?kZVuk gksrs gksrs cph fdarq fdlh
gkyr ls og cl dks ekSngk esa ykdj [kM+h dj nhA fnukad
4.1.93 dks ekSngk ds gh dqN lEHkzkUr O;fDr vk;s rFkk
fnukad 3.1.93 dh ?kVuk fd NdkSMh pkyd va/kk/kqU/k u'ks esa
Fkk rFkk ;fn ;g pkyd ekxZ ij pyk;k tkrk jgk rks fuf'pr
gh cgqr Hk;adj nq?kZVuk gks tk;sxh ftlls reke tkusa Hkh tk
ldrh gSa blesa vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd cl tks ekSngk esa
[kMh gS vU; pkyd Hkstdj egksck eaxokus dh O;oLFkk djus
dk d"V djsaA bl fjiksVZdrkZ 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 esa dgk gS fd bfXt0 bZ0&11 fjiksVZ esjs }kjk dh
x;h gS ;g fjiksVZ mlus NdkSMh yky pkyd ds fo:) nh gS
blesa tks dqN fy[kk gS og lgh fy[kk gS rFkk bfXt0 bZ0&6
mldh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA ftjg ds nkSjku bl xokg us dgk
gS fd "eSaus lacaf/kr Jfed dks 'kjkc fi;s gq, ugha ik;k eSaus
yksxksa ds crkus ij fjiksVZ bfXt0 bZ0&11 dh FkhA n.Mkf/kdkjh
us esjk c;ku ugha fy;k Fkk"A fjiksVZ drkZ dh fjiksVZ nwljksa ds
c;ku ij vk/kkfjr gSA ftuds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij ;g fjiksVZ
mUgksaus dh Fkh mu O;fDr;ksa dks U;k;ky; esa ugha is'k fd;k x;k
gS tcfd tks O;fDr muds ikl ,rn~ laca/k esa lwpuk nsus ds
fy;s x;s FksA ekeys esa cgqr egRoiw.kZ O;fDr Fks mudk uke
irk rFkk lwpuk nsus ds laca/k esa muds gLrk{kj izkIr djuk
pkfg, Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk&i= nsdj bUgsa xokg ds :i
esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgsa xokg ds
:i esa ryc djk;k tk ldrk Fkk vFkok lsok;kstd mUgsa Lo;a
gh U;k;ky; esa is'k dj ldrs FksA fjiksVZ drkZ Lo;a izR;{kn'khZ
ugha gSaA bl izdkj dh nh x;h lwpuk vlR; gks ldrh gS vr%
eSa ikrk gwW fd fjiksVZ drkZ dh fjiksVZ lafnX/k gS vkSj ml ij
fo'okl iw.kZ :is.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ,slh fjiksVZ ds
vk/kkj ij fnukad 21.9.2001 ls lsok lekfIr dk fn;k
x;k n.M fdlh Hkh n'kk esa mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud ugha dgk tk
ldrk gSA 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;ksafd pkyd dk in cgqr egRoiw.kZ in
gS ftlds cl lapkyu ds le; reke ;kf=;ksa dh tkus mlds
gkFk esa gksrh gSa vkSj 'kjkc ihdj cl dk lapkyu djuk
xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gSA pwWafd orZeku ekeys esa tSlk fd Åij
mfYyf[kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] vkjksi fookfnr Jfed ds fo:)
izHkkfor ugha gS vr% mls fn;k x;k n.M fujLr fd;s tkus
;ksX; gSA

mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq, eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gw¡ fd lsok;kstdks }kjk Jfed
NdkSMh 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 ugha
gSA eSa vkns'k nsrk gwW fd lsok;kstd fookfnr Jfed dks rRdky
mldh lsokvksa dh v[k.Mrk 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; fgrykHkksa lfgr
bl vfHkfu.kZ; ds ykxw gksus ds fnukad ls ,d ekg ds vUnj
Hkqxrku djsaA

lsok;kstdksa dk ;g Hkh funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr
Jfed dks lsok esa ysus ds i'pkr] tSlkfd Åij 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 jgsA

eSa ;g Hkh vkns'k nsrk gwW fd lsok;kstd i{k Jfed i{k dks
300@& :Ik;k 1⁄4rhu lkS :i;k1⁄2 dsoy okn O;; ds :i esa
vnk djsaxsA
g0
1⁄4fu;kt vgen1⁄2
ihBklhu vf/kdkjhA "
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award
the petitioner filed this writ petition.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.
As a consequence learned counsel for the
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.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25024 of 2008

Surendra Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus.
Ram Naresh Lal @ Thakur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. P.P. Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. R.K. Srivastava

U.P.
Urban
Building(
Regulation
of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Section 16(9)-allotment of residential