UPSRTC Vs. JEEWAN PRASAD MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant U. P. State Road Transport corporation and another have brought in challenge the judgment and order dated April 2, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a writ petition filed by respondent 1 workman.

(2.) A few relevant facts leading to the present proceedings may be noted at the outset.

(3.) The respondent workman was working as a Welder, Grade I in the service of the appellant Corporation at Kanpur. It is his case that on July 19, 1983 he submitted an application that he should be sanctioned earned leave from July 25, 1983 to August 19, 1983. His prayer was accepted and accordingly, he remained on leave. On July 27, 1993 he was ordered to be transferred from Allen Forest workshop at Kanpur to Dehradun workshop and he was ordered to be relieved. This transfer order was challenged by him before the High court of Allahabad by filing W. P. No. 10291 of 1983, which was dismissed. Even thereafter without reporting for duty at Dehradun he filed a review petition in the High Court. Earlier dispute which was raised by him before the labour Court, Kanpur about the post and pay scale of Mechanic was withdrawn. The appellant Corporation tried to serve respondent 1 at his last-known address asking him to report at Dehradun but that notice could not be served as he had left that place. The appellant Corporation had to issue notice in dainik Hindustan (a daily Hindi newspaper) asking Respondent 1 to resume his duties. The said notice is said to have been published in the newspaper on April 19, 1984. After the writ petition was dismissed, Respondent 1 moved an application under Section 6-F of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on January 11, 1985 raising a dispute about the alleged illegal termination of his service with effect from June 11, 1984, which according to the appellant corporation was passed as despite public notice published in the newspaper, he did not report for duty. The Labour Court after hearing the parties took the view that it cannot be said that the services of Respondent 1 were illegally terminated and hence the reference was rejected on October 29, 1993. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said order in 1994. The High court after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition on April 2, 1997. The High Court took the view that without issuing a show-cause notice to Respondent 1 his services could not have been terminated. He was therefore ordered to be reinstated with back wages from january 1, 1988. It is this order which is brought in challenge in appeal by the appellant corporation after obtaining special leave.