IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1329 (MS) OF 2001 (Old No. 48587/2000) Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Region, Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Arbind Kumar Maurya, S/o Amra Singh Maurya, R/o Rampur Tiraha, Muzaffarnagar, 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun. …….Respondents. Dated: 26.04.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 14th June, 2000 published on 6th July, 2001 in Adjudication Case No. 125 of 1998. Briefly stated, the respondent no. 1 was appointed on daily wage on 01.08.1998 on the post of Conductor. A charge sheet was issued to him on 25.08.1992 and a reply was filed by him in his defend, but the same was found unsatisfactory. A domestic inquiry was directed to be made and on 12.02.1993 an independent enquiry officer (Assistant Regional Manager- Kotdwar) was appointed to conduct the same. On 12.03.1994, enquiry officer submitted his report to the petitioner, in which charges were found proved against the respondent no.1. On 22.04.1994, petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 asking reply within fifteen days on the proposed punishment. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the respondent no. 1 submitted his reply on 03.06.1994. On 31.10.1994, the service of the respondent no.1. was terminated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid termination order, respondent no. 1 raised an industrial dispute, in which it has been observed by the Labour Court that the termination of the service of the respondent no.1 is too harsh and therefore, the Labour Court has passed the order of punishment by stopping one increment and was given 25 percent of the backwages. However, the petitioner has been reinstated. Findings of the Labour Court are quoted below:- “tkWp vf/kdkjh dh ,slh dksbZ fVIi.kh ;k oknh Jfed }kjk dh xbZ ftjg tkWp dk;Zokgh esa vafdr ugha gSA lHkh vkjksiksa ls lacaf/kr fujh{kdksa ds c;ku gks tkus ds ckn tkWp vf/kdkjh us mlh fnu tk¡p dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dh nh o oknh Jfed ls ;g ugha iwNk fd og vius cpko esa dksbZ lk{; nsuk pkgsxk ;k ugha vkSj viuh tk¡p vk[;k {ks=h; izcU/kd dks Hkst nhA viuh tk¡p vk[;k esa mUgksaus vkjksi la0 3] 6 o 10 ls oknh Jfed dks lacaf/kr ugh ik;k o vkjksi la0 2] 4 o 18 esa oknh Jfed dh dsoy ykijokgh ikbZA vkjksi la0 13 ds ckjs esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh dk ;g fy[kuk fd oknh Jfed dks ;k=h ls fyf[kr c;ku ys ysuk pkfg, Fkk mfpr ugh gS D;ksafd ;g nkf;Ro lsok;kstu Ik{k dk FkkA vkjksi la0 18 ds laca/k esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh us ekuk fd cl vksoj yksM Fkh D;ksafd mlesa 54 ;k=h FksA ;gh ckr vkjksi la0 2] 8] 9 o 13 ds laca/k esa Hkh gS tc cl vksojyksM FkhA tk¡p vf/kdkjh us vkius fu"d"kZ esa dgha ;g ugha fy[kk gS fd fcuk fVdV ;k=h ik, tkus okys vkjksiksa esa oknh Jfed dh dksbZ cnuh;rh Fkh ;k mlus ;k=h;ksa ls fdjk;k ysdj mldks gM+Ik fy;k FkkA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh Jfed lsok esa ebZ 91 ls gh u;k yxk Fkk vkSj igyh nwljh ckj mldh ykijokgh ik, tkus ij mls dksbZ psrkouh ;k y?kq n.M ugha fn;k x;k rFkk ebZ 91 ls tuojh 92 dh vof/k dh fHkUu frfFk;ksa dks gq, fujh{k.kksa ij ,d ykHk ,d gh vkjksi Ik= fn;k ftlesa dfri; frfFk;ksa ls lacaf/kr vkjksiksa dk mlls laca/k gh ugha Fkk vkSj vkjksi la0 10 o 13 esa fcuk fVdV ;k=h dze’k% nks cPps o ,d cPpk FkkA vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh Jfed dks fn;k x;k n.M vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ds lekuqikfrd ugh gS o vR;f/kd dBksj gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dukZVd us dukZVd jkT; lM+d ifj0 fuxe cuke f’kodqekj esa fn0 8&10&98 ds fu.kZ; esa ,sls ekeyksa esa lsok lekfIr ds n.M dks vR;f/kd dBksj crk;k gS [,Q ,y vkj 1999 okY;we &83 ikVZ 2] vr% esa vfHkfu.kZ; nsrk gw¡ fd lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed vjfoUn dqekj ekS;kZ] ifjpkyd dh lsok;sa fn0 31&10&94 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk vR;Ur dBksj n.M gksus ds dkj.k vuqfpr o voS/kkfud gS o blds LFkku ij mldh ,d osru o`f) Hkfo";xkeh izHkko ds lkFk jskdus dk n.M fn;k tkrk gSA bl n.M ds lkFk mls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tk; o fiNyh vof/k dk 25 izfr’kr osru fn;k tk;A” I find no illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court so as to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 26.04.2006 Rathour