# U.P.S.R.T.C v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 892
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-09-25
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41259
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Labour
Court
award-reinstatement
with
full
back
wages except denial of one year salarychallenged on the ground of habitual
offender-workman carrying passengers
without tickets-held-workman may be in
fault for not stopping the bus within
2Km. from the boarding station-but the
driver also equally responsible-it could
be due to paucity of time could not issue
ticket to five passengers out of 50-for
negligence 1⁄4 of wages as awarded by
the Labour Court would be sufficientwith such modification the terms of
award stood confirmed.

Held: Para 16 & 17

In my opinion, it appears that there has
been some technical violation of the rule
by the driver and the conductor in not
stopping the bus within two kilometers
from the bus station so as to enable the
conductor
to
issue
tickets
to
all
passengers of the bus but it would not
reflect any bad intention on the part of
conductor for not being able to issue
tickets to all 50 passengers in a short
time.

However, as regards back wages are
concerned, since the labour court has
found
that
there
has
been
some
technical violation of rule and has also
substituted a lesser punishment, no
interference in writ jurisdiction is called
for but certainly the workman not be
entitled to full back wages in the
circumstances
as
he
could
have
requested the driver to stop the bus to
enable him to issue tickets. Therefore, in
my opinion, the workman has been
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C.. V. State of U.P. and others
893
reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th
of the back wages, that would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice and
accordingly I hold that the workman will
not be entitled for remaining 3/4th of
the full back wages as awarded by the
labour court. The impugned award is
accordingly
modified
to
the
above
extent.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
892

3. In any case as the order dated
25.9.2007 had been affirmed by this court
in writ petition hence recall was not
maintainable. When landlord brought this
fact to the notice of the lower appellate
court, the lower appellate court very
rightly through order dated 7.5.2008 set
aside its order dated 4.4.2008 and restored
the order dated 25.9.2007 and further
imposed a cost of Rs.500/- upon the
tenant for concealing the fact that order
dated 25.9.2007 had been approved by the
High Court.

4. The only fault which I find in the
impugned order is that the lower appellate
court was quite lenient in imposing the
cost. Heavier cost ought to have been
imposed. However, this is tenant's writ
petition hence I am not inclined to
enhance the cost. This writ petition is
utterly devoid of merit hence dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant
petitioner states that hearing of appeal
may be expedited. Accordingly, it is
directed that appeal must be decided very
expeditiously. Absolutely no un-necessary
adjournment shall be granted to any of the
parties. If the court below is inclined to
grant any adjournment in any form to any
of the parties, then it shall be on very
heavy cost, which shall not be less than
Rs.500/- per adjournment. Petition
dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3995 Of 2000

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

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Samir Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. B.P. Yadav

Constitution
of
India-Labour
Court
award-reinstatement
with
full
back
wages except denial of one year salarychallenged on the ground of habitual
offender-workman carrying passengers
without tickets-held-workman may be in
fault for not stopping the bus within
2Km. from the boarding station-but the
driver also equally responsible-it could
be due to paucity of time could not issue
ticket to five passengers out of 50-for
negligence 1⁄4 of wages as awarded by
the Labour Court would be sufficientwith such modification the terms of
award stood confirmed.

Held: Para 16 & 17

In my opinion, it appears that there has
been some technical violation of the rule
by the driver and the conductor in not
stopping the bus within two kilometers
from the bus station so as to enable the
conductor
to
issue
tickets
to
all
passengers of the bus but it would not
reflect any bad intention on the part of
conductor for not being able to issue
tickets to all 50 passengers in a short
time.

However, as regards back wages are
concerned, since the labour court has
found
that
there
has
been
some
technical violation of rule and has also
substituted a lesser punishment, no
interference in writ jurisdiction is called
for but certainly the workman not be
entitled to full back wages in the
circumstances
as
he
could
have
requested the driver to stop the bus to
enable him to issue tickets. Therefore, in
my opinion, the workman has been
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C.. V. State of U.P. and others
893
reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th
of the back wages, that would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice and
accordingly I hold that the workman will
not be entitled for remaining 3/4th of
the full back wages as awarded by the
labour court. The impugned award is
accordingly
modified
to
the
above
extent.

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

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against an
award dated 12.11.1998 passed by labour
court, U.P., Varanasi in adjudication case
No. 63 of 1997.

3. The State Government having
formed the opinion that an industrial
dispute exists, referred the following
matter for adjudication to the labour court
aforesaid:
"KYA
SEVAJOJAKO
DWARA
APANE SHRAMIK SRI SHAMBHU
CHAUBEY SON OF SRI RAM SAGAR
CHAUBEY, PAD PARICHALAK KI
SEWAYE
DINANK
11.9.1989
SE
SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/
ATHWA
VEDHANIK
HAl?
YADI
NAHI TO SHRAMIK KYA HITLABH
PANE KA ADHIKARI HAl ?"

3. Facts of the case are that
respondent no. 3- workman was a
conductor in petitioner - U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation. On 12.12.1985 the
workman was deputed as conductor on
Bus No. 4500 plying under contract with
the corporation on Allahabad-Jaunpur
route. The checking authority on checking
the bus found that five passengers out of a
total of 50 passengers from Phoolpur to
Badshahpur, were traveling without ticket
even though the respondent no.3 had
already realised fare from them. On the
basis of report submitted by the checking
authority, a charge sheet dated 21.6.1989
was served on respondent no. 3, who also
submitted
his
reply.
After
holding
domestic
enquiry,
the
appointing
authority being satisfied that charges of
serious misconduct contained in the
charge sheet stood fully proved against
him, removed the respondent no. 3 from
service vide order dated 11.9.1989.

4. Aggrieved the workman filed
Writ Petition No. 43140 of 1992 which
was dismissed by judgment and order
dated 23.3.1995 and Special Appeal No.
252 of 1995 preferred against the
judgment in the writ petition, was
disposed of vide judgment dated 2.7.1996
granting liberty to the workman to
approach the labour court. Subsequently,
the
workman
concerned
raised
an
industrial dispute regarding termination of
his service which was referred to the
labour court, Varanasi as stated above.

5. The parties filed their respective
written and rejoinder statements as well as
documents before the labour court and
also adduced oral evidence.

6. On the basis of pleadings, a
preliminary issue was framed as to
whether departmental enquiry held by the
employers was fair and proper or not?
Vide order dated 12.10.1998, the labour
court held that enquiry conducted by the
employer was fair and proper. Thereafter
the labour court considered the dispute on
merits and came to the conclusion that
there was no intention on the part of
workman to misappropriate any revenue
of the corporation. After discussing the
evidence on record and on hearing the
parties, the labour court held that in the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
894
facts and circumstances of the case the
punishment of removal from service of
respondent no. 3 was too excessive as
such it set aside the order of removal and
directed reinstatement of the workman
with continuity in service and full back
wages with minor punishment of stoppage
of one year wage increment with future
effect.

7. It is against the aforesaid finding
of the labour court that present writ
petition has been filed challenging its
validity and correctness on the ground
that labour court has failed to appreciate
that the Corporation could not keep any
employee on its rolls who would cause
financial loss to it.

8. It is stated that labour court has
failed to consider the fact that workman
concerned had also been punished on
several occasions for similar misconduct
which indicated that he was an habitual
offender.

9. It is then submitted that the labour
court has erred in exercising jurisdiction
under section 6(2-a) of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and in any case the
workman was not entitled to any back
wages in the facts and circumstances of
the case.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that bus of the corporation was
checked about four Kilometers away from
the originating bus station yet the
workman concerned had not been able to
issue tickets to five passengers which a
conductor is supposed to issue within two
kilometers. It shows that he had ill
intentions.

11. Counsel for the respondent
workman submitted that the labour court
has rightly come to the conclusion on the
basis of evidence and records produced
before it, that there was no intention of
the workman to embezzle any amount of
the
corporation.
He
submits
that
admittedly there were 45 passengers to
whom the workman had already issued
tickets but he could not issue tickets to
five passengers by the time the bus was
checked after four Kilometers though it is
a rule that bus can be checked within two
kilometers, therefore, he submits that it
was due to mistake of the driver who had
driven the bus beyond four kilometers
distance and had not stopped it before two
kilometers from starting the bus from the
station so that tickets of all passengers
could be made.

12. At the time of admission, the
following interim order was passed in this
petition on 27.1.2000:
"Notice on behalf of respondent nos.
1 & 2 have been accepted by learned
standing counsel, on behalf of respondent
no. 3 by Sri B.P. Yadav. He prays for and
is granted three weeks time to file counter
affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks
thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List
thereafter.
Learned standing counsel may also file
counter affidavit within the same time.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that there was no justification
for respondent no. 2 to award back wages
to the respondent as he did not perform
his duties as conductor for the last 12
years. However, it was stated that
petitioner
was
willing
to
reinstate
respondent no. 3 on the post held by him
in terms of the impugned award.

Under the facts and circumstances, it
is hereby directed that operation of
3 All] U.P.S.R.T.C.. V. State of U.P. and others
895
impugned order shall remain stayed
subject to the condition the petitioner
pays 1⁄4th of the total amount awarded by
respondent no.1, reinstates respondent
no. 3 on the post held by him and pays the
current salary as and when it falls due
month to month, failing which this order
shall stand vacated automatically. "

13. The workman respondent no. 3
has been reinstated and has also been paid
1/4th of the total amount in terms of the
aforesaid interim order.

14. After considering all facts and
circumstances, the labour court has come
to the conclusion that services of the
workman were illegally terminated and he
is entitled to continuity of service with
full
back
wages
and
accordingly
substituted the punishment of removal
from service by stoppage of one year
wage increment with future effect. In fact
the labour court has given a finding that
the workman was not carrying passengers
without ticket with any malafide intention
and the employers could not prove that he
is guilty of taking passengers without
ticket. There may be circumstances as the
labour court has observed, where a bus
conductor may not be able to issue tickets
to all passengers in certain set of facts and
circumstances as in the present case that
50 passengers had boarded the bus at the
previous station and he could not have
issued tickets to all 50 passengers during
the time the bus was checked.

15. After hearing counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record, this
Court is of the opinion that it was not only
the duty of the driver to have stopped the
bus within two kilometers to enable the
workman concerned to issue all tickets
but being conductor he too could have got
the bus stopped earlier. However, in
admitted set of facts, he had already
issued tickets to 45 passengers and it
appears that due to paucity of time, he
could
not
prepare
tickets
of
five
passengers when the bus was checked.
There was no independent evidence of
any passenger that the workman had not
issued tickets to 5 passengers deliberately.
If the driver of the bus continued to drive
the bus, it cannot be said that respondent
workman-conductor was completely not
at fault for non issuance of tickets to all
passengers in the bus.

16. In my opinion, it appears that
there has been some technical violation of
the rule by the driver and the conductor in
not
stopping
the
bus
within
two
kilometers from the bus station so as to
enable the conductor to issue tickets to all
passengers of the bus but it would not
reflect any bad intention on the part of
conductor for not being able to issue
tickets to all 50 passengers in a short time.

17. However, as regards back wages
are concerned, since the labour court has
found that there has been some technical
violation of rule and has also substituted a
lesser punishment, no interference in writ
jurisdiction is called for but certainly the
workman not be entitled to full back
wages in the circumstances as he could
have requested the driver to stop the bus
to enable him to issue tickets. Therefore,
in my opinion, the workman has been
reinstated and has also been paid 1/4th of
the back wages, that would be sufficient
to
meet
the
ends
of
justice
and
accordingly I hold that the workman will
not be entitled for remaining 3/4th of the
full back wages as awarded by the labour
court. The impugned award is accordingly
modified to the above extent.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
896

18. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is partly allowed with
aforesaid modification in the award. No
order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Special Appeal No. 212 of 2007

State of U.P. and another
...Appellants
Versus
Krishnendra Gaur and another

...Respondents/Petitioners

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. R.R. Singh
Sri. M.K. Kushwaha
Sri. B.B. Paul
Mrs. Mahima Kushwaha

U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Board
Act
1982-Ad-hoc
appointment on L.T. Grade post-short
term
vacancy-advertisement
in
one
newspapers
instead
of
two-DIOS
disapproved the appointment keeping in
view of Radha Raizada case-held-properview taken by learned single Judge
about requirement of publication in two
newspapers is mere technicality-heldnot proper-however the salary for the
period of actual working be given.

Held: Para 12 & 13

In the facts of the present case, it is
admitted on record that advertisement
has
been
published
in
only
one
newspaper.
Therefore,
we
have
no
hesitation to record that there has been
violation of law as declared by the Full
Bench of this Court, in respect of ad-hoc
appointment against short term vacancy
as claimed by the petitioner. Further we
are of the opinion that the District
Inspector of Schools was justified in
refusing to accord financial approval to
the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner
on said ground, inasmuch as, as stated
above, is in strict conformity with the
law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court.

The Hon'ble Single Judge was not
justified in upsetting the said order
passed by the District Inspector of
Schools
by
observing
that
nonpublication of the vacancy for ad hoc
appointment against short term vacancy
in two newspapers was only technical in
nature.
Case law discussed:
(1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551; Writ Petition No.
51370 of 2005 decided on 11.06.2007.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel
for appellants and Sri R.R. Singh, learned
counsel for respondents.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh has filed
this intra court appeal against the
judgement and order of the Hon'ble Single
Jude dated 15th July, 2004, passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 19736 of 2001.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant to
be noticed for deciding the present appeal
are as follows:

4. Barauli Inter College, Barauli
Rao, Aligarh is a recognised and aided
intermediate college. The provisions of
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
and those of U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are
fully applicable to the teachers and staffs
of the institution. One L.T. Grade teacher