THE PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 18.1,1999 (copy Annexure P/1). Respondent No. 2 was workman of the petitioner. He joined duty on 3.8.1990 and he had proceeded on leave after few days i.e. w.e.f. 24,8.1990 which he had applied on account of domestic reasons. The leave was sanctioned. He joined duty again on 3.1.1991. The leave was granted upto 26.10.1990 only. Enquiry was conducted. However, it has been held by the Labour Court that the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in one Kitting and recorded the statement of three witnesses of the department but no opportunity was afforded to respondent No. 2 to cross -examine the witnesses. It was held by the Labour Court that the petitioner did not adhere to the principle of natural justice in the enquiry and the enquiry is not legal and valid. The Labour Court observed that the order of terminating the service was a harsh one and it set -aside and ordered that two increments of respondent No. 2 be withheld from cumulative effect. The Labour Court, therefore, set -aside the termination and ordered respondent No. 2 to be reinstated with continuity of service with all the attendant benefits and back wages to the extent of 50% and two increments of respondent No. 2 shall be withheld with cumulative effect.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up before the Bench on 14.12.1999 for motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner is ready to take back respondent No. 2 in service provided that he gives up his claim for 50% back wages.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishru and others,, AIR 2100 SC 1151. In that case, a bus conductor was found to have issued tickets to passengers but they were short distance tickets. The allegation against the conductor was that though the passengers had boarded the bus at the "High Court" for "Manauri" for which they should have been charged Rs. 1.80, they were issued tickets from "Zero Road" to "Manauri" and they were charged only Rs. 1.50. After enquiry, his services were terminated. The order was challenged in departmental appeal which was rejected. The conductor thereafter approached the State Public Service Tribunal (Tribunal) for quashing the order of termination on various grounds but the Tribunal dismissed the claim. This order was challenged by way of writ petition in the High Court, which by its judgment dated 12.2.1998 partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the conductor shall be reinstated in service but he will be paid 25% of the back wages only. This judgment was challenged by the employer in the Supreme Court.