U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ALIAS5ALIAS U P MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, 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:

(2.) ON receipt of the reference, the labor 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?" The parties have adduced their evidence. The Labour Court has proceeded to take up the reference as well as additional issued 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 reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that admittedly the workman's service 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 no accepted it and since this fact has not been disputed by the workman, therefore, he is not entitled for full back wages.