MAYA PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a writ petition for issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Award dated 28-4-1987 (Annexure-6) to the extent it has not given full back wages to the petitioner from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. An other prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 13-10-1987 (An-nexure-15) passed by Regional Manager U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad. Further, prayer has also been made to issue a writ of mandamus direct ing the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in the service.

(2.) TO understand the controversy in volved in this writ petition following facts have to be born in mind. It appears that the power of appointment of Drivers and Conductors was delegated to the Assistant Regional Manager by a resolution under Section 12 (1) (c) of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Later on this delegation was challenged and the termination/dismissal or any disciplinary action taken by virtue of the said delega tion were declared null and void by a judi cial pronouncement of this Court. This lacuna was pointed out in famous case of Bhopal Singh v. U. P. S. R. T. C. So many Labour Court awards passed on merits were also declared invalid. The U. P. Government first of all resorted to Or dinance and later on substituted it by enactment to overcome this difficulty. The Ordinance is called U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1987. The relevant clause reads as under: "notwithstanding any judgment and or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority or any provisions of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Regulations, 1981, no orders made, actions or proceedings taken or jurisdiction ex ercised on or after June 19, 1981 by the officers authorised as appointing authority by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void merely on the ground that such authorised officers were not the appointing authority. "

(3.) IT appears that even thereafter on 23-10-1983 when the petitioner was deputed as Conductor on Bus No. U. P. G. 5690, the Checking Authorities found that he was carrying 3 passengers without tick ets. Therefore, petitioner was suspended on 23-11-1983 and charge-sheet dated 5-12-1983 was served on him. The departmental enquiry was instituted. In the enquiry serious charges of misconduct were found proved after affording full op portunity to the petitioner. Therefore, again a show-cause notice dated 7- 3-1984 along with the copy of enquiry report was served on the petitioner. But the petitioner did not submit reply to the show-cause notices served on him. The appointing authority accordingly removed the petitioner from service vide order dated 12-4-1984, against which petitioner filed appeal which has been rejected vide order dated 21-8-1984.