HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.351 of 2008 (M/S) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer & another …. Respondents Dated:- 21st June, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 workman. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award dated 21.04.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the respondent no.2 workman was employed as a Conductor in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C). A surprise inspection was made while the bus was travelling on a route and it was found that certain passengers were travelling without tickets. This kind of an incident took place on three separate occasions and, accordingly, the workman was chargesheeted for bringing a loss to the Corporation by allowing passengers to travel without tickets. In the domestic enquiry, the charges stood proved and, the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the findings given by the enquiry officer and, after considering other factors, passed an order of termination in the year 1984. The workman sat silent for seven years and then woke up and raised a dispute in the year 1991. The labour court considered the matter and gave an award in the year 1995 holding that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper and that the order of termination was justified and declined to grant any relief to the workman. The workman, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1995 and the same was allowed in the year 2004 directing the labour court to re-decide the matter on merits 2 after considering the evidence that would be led by the parties. Based on the aforesaid direction, the labour court, Dehradun allowed the parties to lead evidence and, thereafter, gave the impugned award in the year 2007 holding that the charge against the workman could not be proved by the employer and, consequently, directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with 50% of the backwages. The Corporation, being aggrieved by the said award, has now preferred the present writ petition in which an interim order was passed staying the award in its entirety. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 workman that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the workman reached the age of superannuation in the year 2008 and, consequently, the workman could not be reinstated in service at this stage. Much water has flown since the date of termination in the year 1984. 23 long years have elapsed and the matter should reach finality. The workman has also retired. A point of jurisdiction was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, the State of Uttarakhand came into existence in the year 2000 and the U.P.S.R.T.C. was bifurcated in the year 2003 and the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation came into existence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, Dehradun had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute since it was outside its territorial jurisdiction and that at the relevant point of time the workman when his services was terminated was working in Saharanpur, which comes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that the High Court while allowing the writ petition in the year 2004 remitted the matter again to the Labour Court, Dehradun for reconsideration and accordingly, as per the direction, the labour court re-decided the matter. The learned counsel for the workman further submitted that no such objection was raised by the petitioner before the labour court with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. 3 Further, the court finds that the charge levelled against the workman was that he allowed the passengers to travel without tickets. The labourt court has found that the said charge could not be proved. This court further finds that there is no finding that the workman had taken the money from the passengers and, deliberately, did not issue any tickets or that the workman had pocketed the money which was given by the passengers towards the fare. Consequently, the court is of the opinion that the penalty of termination of services of the workman was excessive and did commensurate with the misconduct, even if the charge stood proved by the Corporation. As stated earlier, 23 long years have elapsed. Much water has flown. A finality has to be reached. Instead of delegating the matter to the authority to compute the arrears, this court is of the opinion that a lumpsum amount should be fixed towards the arrears of wages. The court finds that the workman has nowhere stated that he remained unemployed during the intervening period. This court does not find that from 1984 till the year 2007, the workman had remained unemployed. The court further finds that the direction of the labour court for payment of 50% of the backwages was based on no evidence. It is settled law, that the labour court is required to consider other aspects while awarding backwages. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this court is of the opinion that remitting the matter to the labourt court or to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for computation of wages at this belated stage would not be in the interest of justice for the parties since the workman has retired. This court is of the opinion that the award of the labour court directing reinstatement does not suffer from any error of law. However, the wages awarded by the labour court appears to be arbitrary and cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the labour court directing the reinstatement of the workman is maintained. The award of the labour court directing 50% of the 4 backwages is set aside and in lieu thereof the court directs the petitioner to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards arrears as well as the cost of litigation which the workman has been pursing for almost two decades to be paid alongwith such retirement benefits, which is due and permissible to be paid an employee of the Corporation. The amount of Rs.50,000/- as well as the retirement benefits would be paid to the workman within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 21.06.2010 LSR